WPC ^jkpO(*< iI'ELBs>z3O22Fz>.9lVu=8B# ԷzqIRq: hR܍xا+؈mVvA-}A&r]& o*~p#E4|)3@NC&j$f }rrUd> *)p gpZL͘RJ{ꀩx W Qrx01̻nyX0) ZjM(WS>9kFj}5d hMMs]({78K+gغEOK*ɧs~bܾxOe`_QY:AA(~Q==KUg:Nj+Sȫ!Z.C#CGKDMj&لaeBYtM(9:/a\>b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 1    j 0 c0N 0DUNE'U0)U >Y 1u 72 P>b 0 B 0 D3@ D-s 0K AS> 0 0D AHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0oQ) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular*DJ)HœyDN 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|xU(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (#$  0  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular2 `CG Times\  `&Times New Roman3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) F R$      1    _TheTennesseeRulesofEvidencehavedifferentexceptionstohearsayifthe_declarant_Ԁisunavailable. See   Tenn.R._Evid_.804.NoevidencehasbeenpresentedbytheplaintiffsthatMr.McLeanwasunavailabletotestifyand v noneisincludedintherecord.Assuch,thiscourtwillnotconsideranyofthehearsayexceptionsunderRule804.  R$      2    _Mrs._Worrell_ԀclearlytestifiedduringthetrialthatshewasrepresentedbyMr._McClain_.Whileshepresented  aposttrialaffidavitstatingthatthisstatementwasincorrect,thisaffidavitwasnotevidenceattrialand,thuscannotbe t consideredbythiscourt. - -(|G2$ !.8D,d d 8         0  ) d(|3$ !.8D,d d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8D,d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8] d d8     _  8+XXdd 8  oA@ boAINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#oAb #Ԉ &   August29,2000Session L  JERRY_WORRELL_,etal.v.ANNWORRELL   p X/mXoA@@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforCrockettCounty F  @@No.2619L.T.Lafferty,Judge 2  @@*AV) ` dE<` A F  @@TTNo.W199901786_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober10,2000 A  AV) ` dE<` A      ThisappealarisesfromadisputeoverinsuranceproceedsbetweenNephews,as_remaindermen_Ԁof  theirAuntslifeestate,andtheirAunt,asthelifetenantofcertainproperty.Thetrialcourtawarded  theAuntsolerightstoinsuranceproceedsobtainedafterthedestructionofthatpropertytothe  exclusionoftheNephews.TheNephewsappealthatrulingaswellasthetrialcourtsomissionof  certainhearsaytestimony,anditsfailuretoawardthemdeclaratoryjudgment.Weaffirmtherulings t ofthetrialcourt. `   iTenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed;and 8 Remanded  $t   DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.HighersandHollyK. L Lillard,J.J.,joined. 8 G.GriffinBoyte,Humboldt,Tennessee,fortheappellants,JerryWorrell,HerbertWorrelland  BobbySutton.  W.DouglasSweet,AngelaR.MeridethandClintonJ.Simpson,Memphis,Tennessee,forthe !  appellee,AnnWorrell. p"!  OPINION  H$#     In1991,Ann_Worrell_shusband,Glen_Worrell_,died.Inhiswill,Mr._Worrell_Ԁbequeathed  &p!% tohiswifealifeestateinallofhisrealestate,withtheremaindertopasstohisnephews,Jerry  '\"& _Worrell_,Herbert_Worrell_,andBobbySutton.ThesenephewsfiledsuitagainstMrs._Worrell_ 'H#' contestingtheiruncleswillinseveralareasnotmadeclearbytherecord.Thissuitwaseventually (4$( settledbytheparties.Mrs._Worrell_Ԁthensettledintothehomeshehadsharedwithherdeceased ) %) husband,andthismatterwouldhavegonenofurtherhadnaturenotintervened. * &*   In1999,atornadodestroyedthishouseandseveraloutbuildingsontheproperty.Mrs. ,', _Worrell_ԀhadinsuredthispropertythroughAllstateInsurancein1998bytheissuanceofapolicy -(- solelyinhername.Mrs._Worrell_Ԁconsistentlypaidthefullpremiumsonthispolicywithherown  funds.Asperthepolicyterms,Mrs._Worrell_Ԁwaspaidover$56,000byAllstateInsuranceforthe  damagessustainedtothehomeandthesurroundingareaafterthetornadostruck.WhenMrs.  _Worrell_Ԁexpressedadesiretonotrebuildherhomebutinsteadmoveelsewhereusingtheinsurance t proceeds,Glen_Worrell_snephews,asthe_remaindermen_ԀofMrs._Worrell_slifeestate,filedsuit. ` Theseplaintiffsdemandedthattheinsuranceproceedsonlybeusedforconstructionofanew L  residencetoreplacethedestroyedhomeandsoughtadeclaratoryjudgmentagainstMrs._Worrell_. 8    Attrial,theplaintiffsarguedthatitwastheresponsibilityofalifetenanttoinsurethe  ` propertyinwhichsheheldalifetenancyforthebenefitofbothherselfandany_remaindermen_.  L  Additionally,theplaintiffssoughttointroducethestatementsmadebyMr.BobbyMcLean,alawyer  8  involvedinthesettlementofthelawsuitconcerningGlen_Worrell_swill.Theplaintiffsstatedthat $  Mr.McLean,actingasMrs._Worrell_sattorney,hadmadeseveralstatementswhichsuggestedthat   Mrs._Worrell_Ԁwouldinsurethepropertyfortheirbenefit.TheplaintiffsarguedthatMr.McLean   assuredthemthatiftherewereanylosses,Mrs._Worrell_Ԁwoulduseanyinsurancemoneytoeither   repairthedamageorplacethefundsinanescrowaccountforusebythe_remaindermen_Ԁuponher   death.Thetrialcourtruledthistestimonyasinadmissiblehearsay.Inaddition,thetrialcourtfound p thatMrs._Worrell_Ԁhadnoresponsibilitytoinsurethepropertyforthebenefitoftheplaintiffsandwas \ entitledtokeepalloftheinsuranceproceeds. Assuch,thecourtdeniedtheplaintiffspetitionfor H declaratoryjudgment.Theplaintiffsthenfiledthisappeal. 8   Theissuespresentedbytheappellants,asweperceivethem,areasfollows: `   1.0 ` Isalifetenantofrealestateunderadutytoinsureimprovementsforcasualtylossfor 8 thebenefitofthe_remaindermen_?$` (#` (#  (5h83! !"3"    325h  2  .3  0 `   Ifalifetenantinsurespropertyimprovementsforthefullvalueandthereisatotal  loss,isthelifetenantentitledtoretainalltheinsuranceproceedstotheexclusionof  the_remaindermen_?3R݌` (#` (# Ќ  "3"    325h  3  .3  0 `   WasthetrialtestimonyoftheplaintiffsofMr.McLeansstatementsproperlyrejected \  asinadmissiblehearsay?33݌H!` (#` (# Ќ  "3"    3V25h  4  .3  0 `   Didthetrialcourterrindismissingtheplaintiffspetitionfordeclaratoryjudgment?3V݌ #p!` (#` (# Ќ  Totheextentthattheissuesinvolvequestionsoffact,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsrulingis denovo $H #  withapresumptionofcorrectness. See Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Accordingly,wemaynotreverse %4!$ thecourtsfactualfindingsunlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. See,e.g., & "% Randolphv.Randolph ,937S.W.2d815,819(Tenn.1996);TennR.App.P.13(d).Withrespect ' #& tothecourtslegalconclusions,however,ourreviewis denovo withnopresumptionofcorrectness. (#'  See,e.g.,Bellexrel.Snyderv._Icard_,Merrill,Cullis,_Timm_,_Furen_Ԁand_Ginsburg_,P.A. ,986 )$( S.W.2d550,554(Tenn.1999);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d). *%)  l+&*   Rightsof_Remaindermen_ԀtoInsuranceProceeds    0  InTennessee,ithasbeenclearlyestablishedthat(#(# 8  X XXX/m[_t]here_Ԁisnolegalobligationonthepartof[a]lifetenanttotakeoutinsuranceon ` theinterestofthe_remainderman_,andinsurancetakenoutbythelifetenantmustbe J  showntohavebeenstipulatedorintendedtocovertheinterestofthe 4  _remainderman_,and,unlesssuchfactappears,itwillbetreatedasacontractfor  n personalindemnitytothelifetenant,andhewillbeentitledtotheproceedstothe  X exclusionofthe_remainderman_. B     Bennettv._Featherstone_ ,71_S.W._Ԁ589,590(Tenn.1902).#X/mX XXa$#ԀTheplaintiffshavepresentedno   compellingreasontochangethispolicy,and,uponreview,wecannotdiscernone.Assuch,we   answerthefirsttwoissuesraisedbytheplaintiffsasfollows.First,alifetenantisundernoduty   toinsureimprovementsforthebenefitofany_remaindermen_.Second,ifalifetenantinsures   improvementsforfullvalue,thelifetenantmayretainallinsuranceproceedstotheexclusionof x  any_remaindermen_. d   HearsayTestimony <      TheTennesseeRulesofEvidencedefinehearsayas astatement,otherthanonemadeby d the_declarant_Ԁwhiletestifyingattrialorhearing,offeredinevidencetoprovethetruthofthe P matterasserted.Tenn.R._Evid_.801(c).Undertheserules,hearsaymaybeadmittedifitmeets < oneofseveralexceptions,dependingontheavailabilityofthe_declarant_. See Tenn.R._Evid_.803, ( 804.TheplaintiffsdidnotarticulateanyspecifichearsayexceptionunderwhichMr.McLeans  testimonycouldbeadmitted.Itisthusnecessaryforthecourttoexaminethehearsayexceptions  undertheTennesseeRulesofEvidencetoseeifanycanbeappliedtothiscase.    Uponexamination,itisclearthattwoexceptionscouldpossiblyapplyinthiscase._ #  1      _ t  ThefirstpossiblehearsayexceptionisRule803(1.2)(D).Thisrulestates X/mXXX/m[a]statementoffered ` againstapartythatis#X/mXXX/m/#Ԁ...X/mXXX/m(D)astatementbyanagentorservantconcerningamatterwithinthe L  scopeoftheagencyoremploymentmadeduringtheexistenceoftherelationshipunder 8! circumstancesqualifyingthestatement asoneagainstthe_declarant_'sinterest regardlessof $"t  _declarant_'savailability.#X/mXXX/m'0#ԀTenn.R._Evid_.803(1.2)(D)(emphasisadded).Therecorddoesnot #d! presentanyevidencethatthestatementbyMr.McLean,asthe_declarant_,wouldbeagainsthis $P" interests.Indeed,wearehardpressedtodiscoverhowMr.McLeancouldhaveanyinterestin $< # Mrs._Worrell_sfutureplanstopurchaseinsurance.Assuch,itisclearhecouldmakeno %(!$ statementagainst hisowninterests duringthesettlementconference.Thus,itisclearthatthis &"% exceptiondoesnotapply. '#& Ї  Underthesecondpossiblehearsayexception,thestatementsofMr.McLeancould  possiblybeadmittedunderrule803(1.2)(C).Thatrulestates, X/mXXX/m[a]statementofferedagainsta  partythatis#X/mXXX/m5#Ԁ...X/mXXX/m(C)astatementbyapersonauthorizedbythepartytomakeastatement  concerningthesubjectmaybeadmitted.Tenn.R._Evid_.803(1.2)(C).Theevidencepresented t attrialwasthatMr.McLeanrepresentedMrs._Worrell_Ԁduringthenegotiationstosettlethewill ` contestbroughtbytheplaintiffs._ #  2      _ԀMr.McLeanoperatedasher agent[]and[had] primafacie L   authoritytospeakfor[her]throughpleadingsandnegotiations. Simmonsv._OCharley_s,Inc. , 8  914S.W.2d895,902(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).Thus,Mr.McLeansstatementsshouldhavebeen $ t admitted ifhemadethestatementswhileoperatingwithinthescopeofhisauthority.󀀀  `   Authorityisdefinedas [_t]he_Ԁlawfuldelegationofpowerbyonepersontoanother...  <  [the]agent...[can]affectlegalrelationsof[the]principalbyactsdoneinaccordancewith[the] (  principalsmanifestationsofconsentto[the]agent. BlacksLawDictionary 121(5thed.1979).   Itisclearfromthis_defination_Ԁthatanagentcanonlybindtheprincipalwhenactingwithinthe   principals manifestationsofconsent. Id. Thus,adeterminationofwhatauthorityMrs.   _Worrell_ԀgaveMr.McLeantosettlethewillcontest,woulddetermineifshewasboundbyhis   statements.Ifshewasboundbyhisstatements,thenRule803(1.2)(C)wouldapplyandMr. t McLeanstestimonywasimproperlyexcluded. `   WhatwasthescopeofMr.McLeansauthority?Uponourreviewoftherecord,weare 8 unabletoascertaintheanswertothisquestion.Nothingintherecordprovidesdetailsaboutthe $t settlementnegotiationsduringwhichMr.McLeansstatementsweremade.Assuch,weare ` unableeventospeculatewhatauthorityMrs._Worrell_Ԁprovidedherattorney.Thisinabilityto L determinethescopeofMr.McLeansauthorityandthustheadmissibilityofhisstatements,does, 8 bynecessity,turnourattentiontoarelatedmatter. $   #X/mXXX/m 6#DeclaratoryJudgment X/mXXX/m      InTennessee,#X/mXXX/mIA#X XXX/m [_i]t_Ԁmaybestatedasageneralrule,thatthe burdenofproofisuponthe  plaintifftoshowthatconditionsexisttojustifythecourtinexercisingitsdiscretionarypowersto t grant declaratoryreliefpursuanttothedeclaratoryjudgmentstatute#X/mX XXA#X/mXXX/m. Blakev.PlusMark,Inc. , ^  952S.W.2d413,417(Tenn.1997)(citationsomitted).Iftheplaintiffsfailtomeetthisburden, N! thentheyarenotentitledtodeclaratoryrelief.#X/mXXX/mXC#X XXX/m Thepleadingpartyhastheburdenofprovingthat :"  thecontroversyisjusticiableandofestablishingthefactsneedtobringanaction. Id. at41617. (#x!  [_A]n_Ԁapplicantfora declaratoryjudgmenthasthe burdenofshowingthatpresentjusticiable $b" controversyexists,andifthisfactisnotshownthenacauseofactionfor declaratoryreliefisnot $N # established. Id. at417  (citationsomitted). %:!$   &$"%   Theplaintiffshavefailedinthiscasetomeettheburdenofproofrequiredfora   declaratoryjudgment.Withoutconclusiveproofintherecord,itisimpossibleforthiscourtto  determinetheextentofMr.McLeansauthoritytobindMrs._Worrell_.IfMr.McLeanhadno  authoritytobindMrs._Worrell_Ԁinthismatter,thenRule#X/mX XXD#X/mXXX/m803(1.2)(C)#X/mXXX/mI#X XXX/mԀwouldnotapply.IfMr. n McLeansstatementsareexcluded,itisclearforthereasonsalreadydiscussedabovethatMrs. \ _Worrell_Ԁisentitledtousetheinsuranceproceedsasshedesires.Astheplaintiffshavefailedto F  meettheirburdenofproofinthiscase,wemustfindthat#X/mX XXjI#thetrialcourtactedwithinits sound 0  discretioninitsdismissaloftheplaintiffspetition.Assuch,wefindthatthetrialcourtdidnot  n errindismissingtheplaintiffspetitionfordeclaratoryjudgment.X XXX/mԀ#X/mX XX-L#X/mXXX/mԀ#X/mXXX/muL#X/mXXX/m  Z #X/mXXX/mL#  Conclusion  4       Basedontheforegoingconclusions,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costson   appealareassessedagainsttheappellants,Jerry_Worrell_,Herbert_Worrell_,andBobbySutton,and   theirsurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.      `     h     ___________________________________ X    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE