WPC' xvDV~ W{*|(NWe!K>NͫxP[z HP-~_&rǪf4V47_4NQGk%Ƅ  jM#5(;nY/N+@i%JqO'{T^A'b\B'vJy&jK`ʹ9aze85CsGSRd{$ OY  +}+ }w"Tgfb~4[d.‰1]"nUnQ(sÊy_5PZ5nĽP ϱK c7g{q6Bdגt"[xf9iRCut&_xDm?3tns,hG @  o% @ o 0UI  0~AU J^ w4- B 0CT4 > m@bW 0N_! 0Y\\ib01s01\clerk1nas,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,<:Footnote Ref< :Footnote TexXXX'dxd&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK\  `&Times New Roman  WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -  WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -(-2$ !USUS.,    ($USUS.,    1    _ >XXAdditionalrespondentsincludeMichaelKurtWakefield,ElizabethChereeW.Ross,ReneeWakefield  MacDonald,NathanMurreyGreen,TimothyLewisWakefield,DougSandlin,KenMelvin,andKristinaM. t Sandford.TheseadditionalrespondentsaretheheirsofWakefieldschildrenwhodiedafterthe1997Petition. 8 TheirbriefincorporatesallargumentsfromtheAppelleesbriefandaddsonlyminorissuesthathavepretermittedby L thisdecision.(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  kIA`2WP TypographicSymbols42 IN1B013C1  ($USUS.,    3    _>XXT.C.A.311101(5)states: Heirsmeansthosepersons,includingthesurvivingspouse,whoareentitled  underthestatutesofintestatesuccessiontothepropertyofadecedent.T.C.A.311101(5)(2001).T.C.A.31 t 2104(b)(3)states: ...theentireintestateestateifthereisnosurvivingspouse,passesasfollows:...(3)Ifthereis 8  nosurvivingissueorparent,tothebrothersandsisters....T.C.A.312104(b)(3)(2001). 3|x d($     MURREYAmSOUTHSANDLINCHEREEKRISTINASANDFORD COA P.J. W.S.ShockleyTroststirpesT]henAColemanA[t]heNat'lMeachum S.W.BallardestoppedpretermittedVol.IT.C.A.mailto:Petition@).[recordU- -(O$  ($USUS.,    2    _>XX >>ColemansEstatereferstoothersectionsofthewillthatpurportedlysupportanearlyvestingconstruction.  However,thesesectionsrelatespecificallytheminorbeneficiaries;theydonotrelatetothesectionsatissueandthis t argumentisthereforewithoutmerit. 8  #> >#64Hyperlink    !USUS.,  _ XXXX Q.X X8XXdd8    @ # XX Q.\# NX XINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE# XX N# Q.X XԈ &   B.` hp x (#XBAugust4,2004Session L # XX Q.# Q.X X InRe:ESTATEOFMURREYLOUISWAKEFIELD,DECEASED; J AmSOUTHBANKandJUDITHWAKEFIELDSANDLIN,CoExecutors,  ^ LINDAWAKEFIELDMELVINandJUDITHSANDLIN " r v. 6  ESTATEOFNANCYWAKEFIELDCOLEMAN,TEDR.BROWNING, J  Executor,MICHAELKURTWAKEFIELD,ELIZABETHCHEREEW. ^  ROSS,RENEEWAKEFIELDMACDONALD,NATHANMURREYGREEN, r  TIMOTHYLEWISWAKEFIELD,DOUGSANDLIN,KENMELVIN,and   KRISTINAM.SANDFORD# XX Q.|#     AnAppealfromtheProbateCourtforDavidsonCounty  No.94P1917FrankG.Clement,Jr.,Judge  -   >X X  k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KEJ K KJ2 -  # XX ># No.M200302537_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember22,_2004_ E -   >X X  k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE K K2 -  # XX >d#    Thiscaseinvolvestheconstructionofawill.Thewillestablishedatrustforthebenefitofthe h decedentschildrenthatprovidedincomeforelevenyears.Attheendoftheelevenyearterm,the T trustwastobeterminatedandthetrustassetsdistributedtothebeneficiaries.Duringtheelevenyear @ term,oneofthedecedentschildrendied,leavingnospouse,childrenorsurvivingparent.The , beneficiaryunderthedeceasedchildswillsued,seekingthatchildsshareofthetrustassets.At  issuewaswhetherthetrustassetsvestedinthebeneficiarieswhenthetestatordiedorwhenthetrust  terminated.Theprobatecourtheldthatthedecedentintendedforthetrustcorpusnottovestinthe   beneficiariesuntilthetrustterminated,andthatthebeneficiaryunderthechildswillwouldnot ! receivehershareofthetrustassets.Weaffirm,findingthatthelanguageofthewillindicatesthat x"  thetestatorintendedforthecorpusofthetrusttovestwhenthetrustterminated. d#!   Rule3Appeal;JudgmentoftheProbateCourtisaffirmed  <% #   HollyM.Kirby,J.,deliveredtheopinionoftheCourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S. 'd"% andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined. Q.X X (P#&  X E.` hp x (#X(#E# XX Q.X# (<$'  XDouglasJ.BrownandGaryC.Shockley,Nashville,fortheappellantEstateofNancyWakefield )(%( Coleman,TedR.Browning,Executor. *&)   +'* CharlesTrost,JosephA.Woodruff,StephanieJ.Edwards,Nashville,forappelleesEstateofMurrey  LouisWakefield,AmSouthBankandJudithWakefieldSandlin,CoExecutors,LindaWakefield  Melvin,andJudithW.Sandlin.   DanielC.PaulusandMichaelP.Dolan,Nashville,foradditionalrespondentsMichaelKurt ` Wakefield,ElizabethChereeW.Ross,ReneeWakefieldMacDonald,NathanMurreyGreen, L  TimothyLewisWakefield,DougSandlin,KenMelvin,andKristinaM.Sandford. 8     Q.X X OPINION# XX Q.i#  6      MurreyLouisWakefield(#XXX X=# Wakefield)diedtestatein1994,survivedbyfourchildren: 6  NancyWakefieldColeman,MichaelL.Wakefield,JudithWakefieldSandlin,andLindaWakefield "r  Melvin.Wakefieldsfifthchild,TimothyM.Wakefield,predeceasedhim,leavingtwoheirs: ^  NathanMurreyGreenandTimothyWakefield.UnderWakefieldswill,thepropertyintheresiduary J  estatewasmadetrustproperty.Utilizingthatproperty,thewillcreatedtheM.L.WakefieldFamily 6  Trust(the FamilyTrust).ThetrusteesweredirectedtograntoneshareintheFamilyTrusttoeach " ofWakefieldssurvivingchildrenandoneshareoftheFamilyTrusttobedividedbythetwo  childrenofTimothyM.Wakefield.ThearticleofthewillwhichestablishedtheFamilyTruststated:  8  Ifanychildshallpredeceaseme,thentheirheirsshalltakeperstirpes.Intheevent  achilddieswithoutheirsthentheirshareshallbedividedequallyamongmy n remainingchildrenortheirheirsperstirpes.Z    Thewillauthorizedthatthecotrusteestodistribute,attheirdiscretion,upto20%oftheannual 2 FamilyTrustincometoeachsurvivingchildand20%totheheirsofTimothyWakefield.Itstated n thatifanyofthebeneficiariespredeceasedWakefield:  Z 8  [T]henincomeheretoforeallocatedto[thebeneficiarywhopredeceasedWakefield] 2 shallgototheirheirsperstirpes.Intheeventthatthebeneficiariesshalldiewithout  heirs,then,andinthatevent,theirshareshallreverttotheFamilyTrustandbe   dividedequallyamongmyremainingchildrenortheirheirsperstirpes.     ThewillprovidedthattheFamilyTrustwouldterminateelevenyearsafterWakefieldsdeath.Upon ~"  terminationoftheFamilyTrust,eachbeneficiarywastoreceiveabequestofeitherspecifiedproperty j#! oraspecificamountofcash.Afterthesebequestsweremade,theremainingFamilyTrustassets V$" weretobedistributedequallyamongthebeneficiaries. B% #   InJanuaryof1997,theProbateCourtofDavidsonCountygavecoexecutorsofWakefields 'j"% estateandcotrusteesoftheFamilyTrustpermissiontopaybeneficiaryNancyWakefieldColeman (V#& (XL XXXA#XX XXL# XXXXColeman#XXX X#XL XXX@#XX XXL)# XXXX)amonthlyadvancementagainstherinterestintheFamilyTrust.Intotal,Coleman (B$' receivedadvancementsof$236,373.49. Laterthatyear,thecoexecutorsofWakefieldsestate,the ).%( cotrusteesoftheFamilyTrust,andTrustbeneficiariesNancyWakefieldColeman,MichaelL. *&) Wakefield,JudithWakefieldSandlin,andLindaWakefieldMelvin  %   ݀filedaPetitionforConstruction +'* ofWillandInstructions(the#XXX Xl# XXXX 1997Petition#XXX X # XXXX).The1997PetitionaskedtheProbateCourttointerpret  WakefieldswillinsuchawaytoholdthatColeman#XXX X@!#XL XXX=#XX XXL"# XXXXsinterestintheFamilyTrusthadvestedupon  herfather#XXX XJ"#XL XXX=#XX XXL"# XXXXsdeathin1994.The1997PetitionaskedtheProbateCourttoholdthatColemanwas  entitledto20%oftheFamilyTrustincomeandafullshareofthecorpusuponterminationofthe t FamilyTrust,andifColemandiedbeforeterminationoftheFamilyTrust, herheirsordevisees ` wouldreceivehershare. The1997Petitionwasneversetforahearingoradjudicatedandwaslater L  supersededbyanamendedpetition.  8    E.` hp x (#X(#EColemandiedtestatein2002,beforetheFamilyTrustterminated. Atthetimeofherdeath,  ` Colemanhadnosurvivingspouseorchildren.Coleman#XXX X##XL XXX=#XX XXLr&# XXXXswilldevisedhershareoftheFamilyTrust  L  toafriend,TedR.Browning,whowasnamedasexecutorofherestate.   8    In2003,Petitioner/Appellee,thecoexecutorsofWakefieldsestateandthecotrusteesof   theFamilyTrust,alongwiththetwosurvivingadultchildren,LindaWakefieldMelvinandJudith   W.Sandlin ,   1      ׀filedan Amended,Restated,andSupersedingPetitionforConstructionofWill(the   #XXX X&#XL XXXA#XX XXLa)# XXXX2003Petition). 4 O  5  #XXX X)# XXXX6)O)  7 * The2003PetitionrequestedaconstructionofWakefieldswillholdingthat   Coleman#XXX XH*#XL XXX=#XX XXLR+# XXXXsinterestintheFamilyTrustdidnotvestuntilterminationoftheTrust.Thiswas p apparentlyintendedtotaketheplaceofthestillpending1997Petition,andindeedadvocateda \ constructionofWakefieldswillthatwascontrarytotheconstructionadvancedinthe1997Petition. H Coleman#XXX X+#XL XXX=#XX XXL:-# XXXXsestatefiledaMotionforJudgmentonPleadingsastoConstructionofWillandasserted 4 thatColeman#XXX X}-#XL XXX=#XX XXL9.# XXXXsinterestvestedatthetimeofWakefield#XXX X|.#XL XXX=#XX XXL.# XXXXsdeath.   p   Argumentonthe2003PetitionandtheMotionforJudgmentonPleadingswasheardon H September5,2003,andtheProbateCourtissueditsrulingonSeptember29,2003.TheProbate 4 CourtconstruedWakefieldswilltoprovidethatColeman#XXX X+/#XL XXX=#XX XXL0# XXXXsinterestintheFamilyTrustdidnotvest   untilterminationoftheTrust.TheProbateCourtnotedthat#XXX X0#XL XXXA#XX XXL1#[t]helanguageusedwithinthefour   cornersoftheWillrevealstheintentoftheTestatorthattheinterestsofhischildrenandtheir  descendantsintheTrustwillnotbecomevesteduntiltheterminationoftheTrust. Fromthatruling,  Colemansestate( ColemansEstate)nowappeals.   XXXX  Onappeal,ColemansEstateassertsthattheProbateCourterredindenyingtheMotionfor X  JudgmentonthePleadingsandarguesthattheplainlanguageofthewilldemonstratesthat D! ColemansinterestvesteduponWakefieldsdeath.#XXX X3# 0"   XXXX  Inawillconstructioncaseinwhichthereisnoconflictintheevidence,thequestionon $X"  appealisoneoflawandthescopeofreviewisdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectness $D # accompanyingthedecisionoftheProbateCourt. InreEstateofVincent, 98S.W.3d146,148  (Tenn.2003).     Thecardinalruleinconstructionofallwillsisthatthecourtshallseektodiscoverthe t intentionofthetestatorandgiveeffecttoitunlessitcontravenessomeruleoflaworpublicpolicy. `  Briggsv.EstateofBriggs ,950S.W.2d710,712(Tenn.App.1997)(citing ThirdNatlBankin L  Nashvillev.FirstAmericanNatlBankofNashville ,596S.W.2d824,828(Tenn.1980)).#XXX X4#Ԁ 8  Therefore,weexaminethedisputedlanguageinWakefieldswillinordertoascertainandeffectuate $ t Wakefieldsintent.  `   Thepartiesagreethatconstructionofthewillonthisissueturnsprimarilyonthelanguage  8  usedintwoprovisionsoftheArticlesofthewillestablishingtheFamilyTrust.Indiscussingthe $  sharesoftheTrusttobegiventoWakefieldschildren,ArticleV,paragraphA.1reads:   8  MycotrusteesshalltakemyresiduaryestateandestablishtheM.L.Wakefield   FamilyTrust.MycotrusteesshallestablishoneshareintheFamilyTrustforeach   ofmychildrenorthedescendantsofadeceasedchildofmine.Ifanychildshall p predeceaseme,thentheirheirsshalltakeperstirpes.Intheeventachilddies \ withoutheirsthentheirshareshallbedividedequallyamongmyremainingchildren H ortheirheirsperstirpes.(Italicsadded.)4      IndiscussingtheallocationoftheincomefromtheFamilyTrust,ArticleVI,paragraphA.4  \ (g)reads: H 8  Shouldanyoftheaforementionedbeneficiariespredeceaseme,thenincome   heretoforeallocatedtothemshallgothetheirheirsperstirpes.Intheeventthatthe   beneficiariesshalldiewithoutheirs,then,andinthatevent,theirshareshallrevert  totheFamilyTrustandbedividedequallyamongmyremainingchildrenortheir  heirsperstirpes.(Italicsadded.)    ColemansEstateassertsthattheterm predeceasemeinbothoftherelevantparagraphscarries X  throughtothefollowingitalicizedsentence,sothattheitalicizedsentencesexplainwhatistohappen D! ifabeneficiarydiesbothbeforethetestatorandwithoutissue.ColemansEstatearguesthat 0"  Wakefieldcouldhavemadetheitalicizedsentencesread diewithoutheirsatanytime;sincehe #l! didnot,hisfailuretodososuggeststhathewasreferringinbothsentencestoachildwho $X" predeceasedhim.Underthisconstruction,Colemansinterestwouldhavevestedatthetestators $D # deathbecauseshedidnotpredeceasehim.ColemansEstatemaintainsthatthisinterpretationis %0!$ consistentwithWakefieldsintent,evidentinthewilloverall,totreathischildrenequallyuponhis &"% death,andnotmakehisgiftstothemconditionedupontheirsurvivalelevenyearsafterhisdeath.   2       '#&   ColemansEstatecites Meachumv.Graham ,39S.W.12(Tenn.1897),and Biblev.  Ballard ,1984Tenn.App.LEXIS2728(Tenn.App.Mar.6,1984),insupportofitsargument.The  Estateassertsthat,under Meachum ,whenadeviseofpropertytakeseffectimmediatelyafterdeath  ofatestator,alimitationbasedonthecontingencyofthefirsttakersdeathreferstothedeathofthe t firsttakerinthetestatorslifetime.  Underthisprincipleofconstruction,whenatestatorhasnot ` madehisintentionclear,theambiguityisresolvedbythepresumptionthat deathwithoutissue L  referstothedeathofthebeneficiarywithoutissueduringthetestatorslifetime. Meachum ,39S.W. 8  at15. $ t ̀    In Meachum ,thetestatordevisedaportionofhispropertytohisdaughtertobeheldintrust  L  forheruntilshereachedagetwentyone. Id .at12.Ifshereachedagetwentyoneandwas  <  unmarried,thenherdevise wastobepaidtoherdirectly. Id .Ifthedaughterlatermarried,thenher (  devisewastogobackintoatrustforherbenefit. Id .Ineitherevent,ifthedaughterdiedwithout   issue,hershareoftheestatewouldthengotothetestatorsotherchildren. Id .Thetestatorssons   filedalawsuit,seekingtohavethedaughtersinterestdeclaredalifeestateonly. Id .at13.The   daughter,whohadreachedagetwentyoneandwasunmarried,counteredthatherinterestwasinfee   simple. Id .The Meachum courtheldthatthedaughtersinterestwasfeesimplebecausethetestator t  cannotbepresumedtointendtocutdownafeealreadygivenbypriorprovisionsundertheitems ` ofthesubsequentprovision. Id .at15(emphasisadded). L   Thisprinciplewasalsoappliedin Biblev.Ballard ,1984Tenn.App.Lexis2728at*2!*3 $t (March6,1984).In Bible ,thedecedentswilldevisedfarmlandtohisson,tobetakenbytheson ` whenhereachedtwentyoneyearsold,withagiftovertothetestatorssiblingsifthebeneficiaryson L diedwithoutissue.  ThisCourtcharacterizedthegiftasafeesimplesubjecttoanexecutoryinterest. 8  Id .at*11.TheCourtthenheldthat,becausethelanguageofthewillwasunclear,theprinciplefrom $  Meachum appliedandthesonwastheownerinfeesimple,sincehesurvivedthetestator. Id. at  *12*13.    However,theinstantcaseisdistinguishablefromboth  ofthesedecisions.Inboth Meachum   and Bible ,thebeneficiaryhadavestedinterestinfeesimplebeforethereversiontootherheirs p occurred.Inthecaseatbar,theassetswerestillheldintheFamilyTrustwhenColemandied. \  UnderWakefieldswill,theassetsweretobeconveyedtoColemanandtheotherbeneficiariesof H! theTrustonlyupontheterminationoftheFamilyTrust.Thus,Colemanneverheldtheassetsinfee 4"  simple.  #p! B+ N V^f #X(#B  Moreover,thelanguageinWakefieldswillsupportstheinterpretationadoptedbytheProbate $H # Courtbelow.Bothofthedisputedprovisionsstatethatifthechildorbeneficiary dieswithout %4!$ heirs,L   3      ׀thenthatchildsshareistobedistributedtotheremainingchildren.Ifthetestatorhadmeant & "% tosay predeceasemewithoutheirshecouldhavedoneso.Underaplainreadingofthelanguage  ofthewill,thesentencemeansexactlywhatitsays:thatifachilddiesandhasnoheirs,thenthat  childsshareistobedistributedtotheremainingchildrenortheirheirs.  B.N V^f #XB  Thisconstructionissupportedbythephrase reverttotheFamilyTrustinthesecond ` paragraph,ArticleVI,paragraphA.4(g),whichappearstorefertotheFamilyTrustashavingalready L  comeintoexistence,indicatingthatthetimeframeforthissentencewasafterWakefieldsdeath. 8    ContrarytotheassertionofColemansEstate,thisconstructionisnotcontrarytoWakefields  ` evidentintenttotreathischildrenequally.Thisinterpretationis,however,consonantwith  L  WakefieldsobviousintentinhiswilltokeeptheTrustassetsinthefamily.Undertheinterpretation  8  advancedbyColemansEstate,Colemansshareoftheassetswouldgotothebeneficiaryunderher $  will,notapartofWakefieldsfamily.     ColemansEstatenotesthatthepositionAppelleestookinthe2003Petition,andinthis   appeal,iscontrarytothepositionadvancedintheir1997PetitiontotheProbateCourt.Whilethis   isnoteworthy,ColemansEstatedoesnotcontendthattheAppelleesaresomehowestoppedfrom p advocatingtheconstructionadoptedbytheProbateCourt.Thisargumentiswithoutmerit. \   Overall,wemustconcludethattheconstructionofWakefieldswilladoptedbytheProbate 4 Courtisconsistentwiththelanguageusedandtheoverallintentofthetestator.  p   Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.CostsoftheappealaretaxedagainstAppellant H EstateofNancyColeman,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. 4    O    W   __________________________________________     O    W   HOLLYM.KIRBY,JUDGE