ÿWPC* …# VUNa %¯ 0 Dµ 0@ùb9 éA 0`* w@Š 4Ê Þ 0ˆí 0Du U:¹ UPó 0JC 0T 0^á 0h? 0r§ 0| 0†• 0« 1u³U ,( 0dT D3¸ BëU,U>4ÃrU*5B)_DCˆ AMË>PV<¦#âÍ8Ò v~ !vÓˆ" AO[(ƪ( 0Dp) D/´) Bã)˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò- ù- ßÔ€XüœXXXÔÔ€(A XXüœÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XüœX (AÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€3,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó(83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý žDŸU D¡U¢P£E¤D¥D¦Ó€°DÒ 3|x°(8(3ß«$¤¤Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ,,,,'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman ¹Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ )ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌÓ` °ƒXã h—XÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d;;;;7Border 1dd€<Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 4Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÔ€:ÔÔ€:ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€:XÔÌÌSeptemberÏ3,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó FÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2ôÔÔ€:ÔThe€record€does€not€show€who€received€the€rents€from€the€real€property€owned€by€theÏdecedent.Ì 2Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2ôÔÔ€:ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€31„2„105(a)(2)(B)€states€as€follows:ÌÌà8 à(a)€If,€for€purposes€of€intestate€succession,€a€relationship€of€parent€and€child€mustÏbe€established€to€determine€succession€by,€through,€or€from€a€person:ÌÌà8 à€€€.€.€.ÌÌà8 à€€€(2)€In€cases€not€covered€by€subdivision€(a)(1),€a€person€born€out€of€wedlock€is€aÏchild€of€the€mother.€€That€person€is€also€a€child€of€the€father,€if:ÌÌà8 à€€€.€.€.ÌÌà8 à(B)€€The€paternity€is€established€by€an€adjudication€before€the€death€of€the€father€orÏis€established€thereafter€by€clear€and€convincing€proof,€but€the€paternityÏestablished€under€this€subdivision€is€ineffective€to€qualify€the€father€or€the€father'sÏkindred€to€inherit€from€or€through€the€child€unless€the€father€has€openly€treated€theÏchild€as€the€father's,€and€has€not€refused€to€support€the€child.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2ôÔÔ€:ÔThe€common€law€concept€of€seisin€is€still€a€basic€principle€of€real€property€law€inÏTennessee.€€Upon€the€termination€of€a€freehold€estate,€"there€must€be€some€ascertained€person€inÏexistence€capable€of€taking€the€seisin."€€Cornelius€J.€Moynihan,€òòIntroduction€to€the€Law€of€RealÏPropertyóó€113€(1962).Ì ÃÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2ôÔÔ€:ÔWhere,€as€in€òòAllen€v.€Harveyóó,€the€owner€of€the€property€at€issue€was€not€the€claimant'sÏfather,€the€adjudication€of€paternity€may€occur€long€after€the€death€of€the€claimant's€father€and€theÏclosing€of€his€estate.Ì .Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2ôÔòòÔ€:ÔSeeóó€òòEstate€of€Jenkinsóó,€912€S.W.2d€134,€136€(Tenn.€1995).€Ì öÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2ôÔÔ€:ÔThe€limitation€stated€also€eliminates€reliance€upon€the€questionable€use€of€the€distinctionÏbetween€"prospective"€and€"retrospective"€application€of€the€statute€to€determine€its€applicability,Ïwhich€was€discussed€in€òòAllen€v.€Harveyóó€and€òòMarshall€v.€Marshallóó.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÓ&€11X„d&ÓÑ#€11Xd#ÑÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  Ý›Ñ , ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€vSXXdìdÈ7ÑÖ€7ÖÑ  ќԀ:Ôà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSeptemberÏ3,€1996à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFORÏPUBLICATIONóóÌÌ›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OFÏTENNESSEEÌ̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€=><;+'h|›{` à. `€€Lß›à@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌBLANCHE€BILBREY€AND€CECIL€à à(ÌASBERRY,à àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àPlaintiffs„Appellees,à àœà à(›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€PickettÏChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Hon.€VernonÏNeal,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€ChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€No.€01S01„9509„CH„00168Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌVESTEL€SMITHERS,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendant„Appellant.à àœà à(›à àà àÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiffs„Appelleesóó:à àà àœòòà àà àFor›ÍDefendant„Appellantóó:ÌÌPhillips€M.€Smallingà àà àà àœà àà àOnnie›€L.€WinebargerÌByrdstownà àà àà àà àà àà àByrdstownÌÌÌœÌÌ›Ìà@ àòòò òÔ€:„ÔÔ€ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Ô€ÔNóóó óÔ€:ÔÔ€:XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœ›ÌJUDGMENT€OF€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌAFFIRMED;€CASE€REMANDED.à àà àà àà àà àREID,€œJ.̛ӀÓÓ` °‚X.h—XÓÔ€:ŠÔà àThis€case€presents€for€review€the€right€of€œa€›child€born€out€ofÏwedlock€to€inherit€from€his€natural€father€who€died€prior€to€the€amendment€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€31„2„105(a)(2)(B)€(Supp.€1995)€in€1978.€€The€recordÏsupports€the€finding€of€paternity,€but€the€claimant€failed€to€establish€the€right€toÏinherit€as€required€by€the€statute;€however,€the€appellant€is€estopped€to€denyÏthe€claimant's€asserted€interest€in€the€decedent€father's€real€property.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òTHE€CASEóóó óÌÌà àS.€D.€(Sam)€Asberry€died€intestate€on€June12,€1966,€survivedÏby€œtwo›€legitimate€children,€Orban€œAsberry€and›€Blanche€Bilbrey,€and€CecilÏœAsberry,›€who€was€born€out€of€wedlock.€Orban€Asberry€qualified€and€servedÍas€the€administrator€of€his€father's€estate.€€The€administration€of€the€estateÏwas€closed€on€the€12th€day€of€August,€1968,€and€the€decedent's€personaltyÏwas€distributed€equally€between€Orban€Asberry€and€Blanche€Bilbrey.€€At€theÏtime€of€his€father's€death,€Cecil€Asberry€made€no€claim€for€a€share€of€theÏpersonal€estate.ÌÌà àNo€disposition€was€made€of€any€portion€of€the€real€propertyÏowned€by€S.€D.€(Sam)€Asberry€until€1983.× ƒ? ××  ×€€In€1983,€and€again€in€1986,Ïportions€of€the€real€property€were€conveyed€to€the€State€of€Tennessee€byÏwarranty€deed€executed€by€Orban€Asberry,€Blanche€Bilbrey,€and€CecilÏAsberry.€€The€deeds€identified€the€grantors€as€"being€the€only€children€andÏheirs€at€law€of€S.€D.€Asberry."€€The€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€the€land€wereÏdivided€equally€among€Orban€Asberry,€Blanche€Bilbrey,€and€Cecil€Asberry.€€InÏ1993,€prior€to€the€filing€of€the€complaint€in€this€case,€Orban€Asberry,€BlancheÏBilbrey,€òòetóó€òòviróó,€and€Cecil€Asberry,€òòetóó€òòuxóó,€executed€an€oil€and€gas€lease€of€realÏproperty€owned€by€S.€D.€(Sam)€Asberry€at€the€time€of€his€death.€€The€recordÏalso€shows€that€the€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€timber€cut€on€the€land€wereÏdivided€among€Orban€Asberry,€Blanche€Bilbrey,€and€Cecil€Asberry.ÌÌà àOrban€Asberry€died€in€1993.€€He€devised€all€of€his€property€toÏhis€stepson,€Vestel€Smithers.€ÌÌà àSoon€after€Orban€Asberry's€death,€Blanche€Bilbrey€and€CecilÏAsberry€filed€this€suit,€seeking€an€adjudication€that€Blanche€Bilbrey,€CecilÍAsberry,€and€Vestel€Smithers€are€tenants€in€common€of€the€real€propertyÏowned€by€Sam€Asberry€at€the€time€of€his€death€and€that€the€land€be€soldÏand€the€proceeds€be€divided€among€the€parties€equally.€€The€partiesÏstipulated€that€S.€D.€(Sam)€Asberry's€paternity€of€Cecil€Asberry€could€beÏproven€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence;€however,€Smithers€disputed€theÏallegation€that€Cecil€Asberry€owns€any€interest€in€the€real€property.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€for€the€plaintiffs€and€held€that€Cecil€AsberryÏby€intestate€succession€became€the€owner€of€a€one„third€undivided€interest€inÏhis€father's€real€property.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed.ÌÌà@ àòòò òANALYSISóóó óà àÌÌà àPrior€to€1978,€a€child€born€out€of€wedlock€could€inherit€from€theÏnatural€father€only€if€there€had€been€an€adjudication€of€paternity€prior€to€theÏdeath€of€the€father.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€31„206(2)€(Supp.€1977).€€ThatÏlaw€was€changed€in€1978€by€this€Court's€decision€in€òòAllen€v.€Harveyóó,€568ÏS.W.2d€829€(Tenn.€1978),€and€the€subsequent€enactment€of€an€amendmentÏto€the€statute€which€is€presently€found€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€31„2„105(a)(2)(B)€(Supp.€1995).œ× ƒ@ ××  ×›ÌÌà àIn€òòAllen€v.€Harveyóó,€there€had€not€been€an€€adjudication€ofÏpaternity€prior€to€the€natural€father's€death.€€Even€though€the€statute€containedÏno€provision€at€that€time€for€an€adjudication€of€paternity€after€the€death€of€theÏfather,€this€Court€found€"the€policy€of€that€Act€to€be€one€of€sanctioningÏinheritance€if€the€father„child€relationship€is€clearly€established,"€568€S.W.2d€atÏ834,€and€held€that€paternity€for€the€purpose€of€"inheritance,"€could€beÏdetermined€òòafter€the€deathóó€of€the€father,€upon€"clear€and€convincing€proof"Ïprovided€"rights€of€inheritance€have€not€finally€vested."€€òòId.óó€at€835.€€The€CourtÏstated€that€application€of€the€decision€to€other€cases€would€be€prospectiveÏonly.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àThe€decision€in€òòAllen€v.€Harveyóó€turned€on€a€finding€of€clear€andÏconvincing€proof€of€paternity.€€The€second€condition,€"where€rights€ofÏinheritance€have€not€vested,"€was€not€an€issue€in€that€case€because€it€wasÏa€condemnation€proceeding€by€the€State€in€which€the€owner€of€the€propertyÏdied€during€the€pendency€of€the€case.€€The€claimant's€right€to€inherit€wasÏdependent€upon€the€determination€that€he€was€the€child€of€the€owner'sÏdeceased€brother.€€Consequently,€there€could€be€no€claim€that€"rights€ofÏinheritance"€had€vested,€and€the€issue€was€not€discussed€by€the€Court.€ÌÌà àThe€1978€amendment€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€31„2„105€codifiedÏthe€Court's€decision€in€òòAllen€v.€Harveyóó,€that€paternity€could€be€establishedÏafter€the€death€of€the€father€upon€clear€and€convincing€proof.€€However,€theÏstatute€did€not€address€the€second€limitation€found€in€òòAllen€v.€Harveyóó,€thatÏ"rights€of€inheritance€have€not€finally€vested."ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€Court€of€Appeals€based€its€decision€thatÏCecil€Asberry€is€entitled€to€a€share€of€his€natural€father's€property€uponÏòòMarshall€v.€Marshallóó,€670€S.W.2d€213€(Tenn.€1984).€€In€òòMarshall€v.€Marshallóó,Ïthe€Court€€applied€the€decision€in€òòAllen€v.€Harveyóó€"retrospectively"€and€heldÏthat€a€child€born€out€of€wedlock€could€inherit€from€his€intestate€father,€who€hadÏdied€in€1975€survived€by€a€widow€and€collateral€heirs.€€òòId.óó€at€215.€€TheÏopinion,€filed€in€1984,€does€not€discuss€the€statute€or€the€holding€in€òòAllen€v.ÏHarveyóó€that€the€claim€will€not€be€allowed€to€disturb€vested€rights;€nor€does€itÏaddress€the€time€within€which€the€right€of€inheritance€must€be€asserted,€exceptÏto€find€that€the€"defendants€in€the€instant€case€have€not€acted€in€reliance€uponÏthe€precedent€overruled€by€òòAllenóó€.€.€.€."€€òòIdóó.€€Nevertheless,€the€effect€of€theÏòòMarshallóó€decision€was€œthat€three€and€one„half€years€after€the€death€of€theÏowner€of€the€property,€the›€fee€simple€title€to€the€property,€subject€only€to€theÏwidow's€statutory€rights,€was€divested€out€of€the€decedent's€heirs€at€law€andÏvested€into€his€œson€who€was€born€out€of€wedlock.›€€The€decision€obviouslyÏdisturbed€vested€property€rights,€despite€its€focus€on€"prospective"€andÏ"retrospective"€applications€of€the€statute.€€ÌÌà àConsequently,€neither€the€statute€nor€any€opinion€of€this€CourtÍhas€addressed€directly€the€time€within€which€a€child€born€out€of€wedlock€mustÏassert€the€right€to€inherit€by€virtue€of€his€relationship€with€his€natural€father.€ÏThat€issue€was€raised€in€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€this€case.€ÏThe€trial€court€ruled€that€title€had€not€vested€in€the€decedent's€legitimate€childrenÏand,€further,€€that€Vestel€Smithers€was€estopped€from€asserting€any€statute€ofÏlimitation.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€utilized€a€different€rationale.€€In€response€toÏSmithers'€insistence€that€title€to€S.€D.€(Sam)€Asberry's€real€property€hadÏvested€in€the€decedent's€legitimate€heirs€at€law€immediately€upon€his€death€inÏ1966,€that€court€apparently€found€that,€pursuant€to€òòAllen€v.€Harveyóó€andÏòòMarshall€v.€Marshallóó,€title€also€vested€œin€Cecil›€Asberry€upon€the€death€of€theÏfather,€even€though€there€had€been€no€adjudication€of€paternity.€€The€Court€ofÏAppeals€did€not€discuss€the€statute€of€limitation€or€estoppel.€€The€decision€byÏthe€Court€of€Appeals€that€title€vested€in€the€claimant€upon€the€death€of€hisÏfather,€even€though€there€had€been€no€adjudication€of€paternity,€left€unresolvedÏsignificant€issues€regarding€the€ownership€of€property.€€Application€of€theÏrelevant€rules€of€law€compels€the€conclusion€that€neither€the€decision€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€nor€the€trial€court€is€entirely€correct.€€Both€courts,€as€well€asÏthis€Court€in€òòMarshall€v.€Marshallóó,€ignored€the€decision€in€òòAllen€v.€Harveyóó€thatÏan€adjudication€of€paternity€subsequent€to€the€father's€death€will€not€beÏallowed€to€disturb€vested€interests.€€ÌÌà àDetermining€the€appropriate€application€of€the€limitation€thatÏvested€rights€will€not€be€disturbed€to€the€statute€allowing€paternity€to€beÏestablished€after€the€father's€death€requires€consideration€of€the€law€of€realÏproperty,€intestate€succession,€and€equal€protection.€€That€considerationÏproperly€begins€with€the€applicable€statutes.€€Section€31„2„103(a)€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€real€property€of€an€intestate€decedent€shallÏvest€immediately€upon€death€of€the€decedent€in€theÏheirs€as€provided€in€ðð€31„2„104.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÓ€ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€31„2„103(a)€(Supp.€1995).€€For€purposes€of€intestateÏsuccession,€a€person€born€out€of€wedlock€is€the€child€of€that€person's€father€if:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€paternity€is€established€by€an€adjudicationÏbefore€the€death€of€the€father€or€is€establishedÏthereafter€by€clear€and€convincing€proof.ÌÌÌÌÓ€ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€31„2„105(a)(2)(B).€€Consequently,€if€there€has€been€anÏadjudication€of€paternity€prior€to€the€death€of€the€father,€the€child€born€out€ofÏwedlock€inherits€by€intestate€succession€as€a€legitimate€child,€and€title€to€theÏdecedent's€real€property€vests€in€that€child€immediately€upon€death€of€theÏdecedent.€€No€further€adjudication€is€necessary€to€establish€the€child's€right€toÏinherit.€€ÌÌà àBut,€according€to€the€statute,€where€there€has€been€noÏadjudication€of€paternity€prior€to€the€father's€death,€paternity€can€beÏestablished€only€by€clear€and€convincing€proof,€which,€of€course,€requires€aÏjudicial€determination€subsequent€to€the€death€of€the€father.€€The€onlyÏdesignation€in€the€statute€of€the€time€within€which€that€determination€can€beÏmade€is€"thereafter,"€or,€in€other€words,€after€the€father's€death.€€However,Ï"thereafter"€cannot€be€unlimited€or€uncertain,€because,€as€previouslyÏdiscussed,€the€right€of€œa›€œchild€born€out€of€wedlock€to›€inherit€cannot€be€assertedÍto€disturb€"rights€of€inheritance"€that€have€"finally€vested."× ƒA ××  ×€€Consequently,€itÏappears€that€the€limitation€imposed€upon€the€right€of€a€child€born€out€ofÏwedlock€to€inherit€from€the€child's€natural€father,€where€paternity€has€not€beenÏestablished€prior€to€the€father's€death,€is€that€paternity€must€be€proven€byÏclear€and€convincing€proof€prior€to€the€vesting€in€interest€in€persons€other€thanÏthe€claimant„child.€€ÌÌà àIn€reaching€its€decision€in€òòAllen€v.€Harveyóó,€the€Court€relied€uponÏòòTrimble€v.€Gordonóó,€430€U.S.€762,€97€S.Ct.€1459€(1977),€in€which€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€held€that€an€Illinois€statute€that€permitted€only€legitimateÏchildren€to€inherit€from€a€father€who€died€intestate€violated€the€equal€protectionÏprovisions€of€the€United€States€Constitution.€€In€that€case,€the€Supreme€CourtÏrecognized€that€the€state€has€a€legitimate€interest€in€establishing€an€orderlyÏmethod€of€disposition€of€intestate€property,€that€the€more€serious€problemsÏincident€to€proving€the€paternity€of€persons€born€out€of€wedlock€justify€a€moreÏdemanding€standard€of€proof,€and€that€the€dependability€of€titles€to€propertyÏpassing€by€intestate€succession€must€be€ensured.€€òòId.óó€at€771,€97€S.Ct.€atÏ1465.ÌÌà àA€reasonable€accommodation€of€these€state€interests€and€theÏrights€of€persons€born€out€of€wedlock€to€inherit€from€their€natural€fathers€is€toÏrequire€that,€in€the€absence€of€a€statute€addressing€the€issue,€a€claimant€mustÍassert€the€right€to€inherit€within€the€time€allowed€creditors€to€assert€a€claimÏagainst€the€estate€of€the€person€who€was€the€owner€of€the€property€in€whichÏan€interest€is€claimed.× ƒB ××  ×€€Admittedly,€this€is€a€somewhat€arbitrary€determination.€ÏHowever,€in€the€absence€of€a€statute,€this€determination€is€necessary€in€orderÏto€resolve€competing€rights.€€In€any€event,€this€limitation€can€be€determined€byÏfamiliar€and€well„defined€rules,€it€meets€constitutional€standards€of€notice€toÏclaimants,× ƒC ××  ×€it€protects€the€rights€of€creditors€and€subsequent€owners€of€theÏproperty,€it€poses€no€threat€to€"rights€of€inheritance"€beyond€those€which€mayÏnow€be€posed€by€creditors€and€taxing€authorities,€and€it€retains€the€presentÏdegree€of€dependability€in€the€titles€to€intestate€property.× ƒD ××  ×€ÌÌà àIn€summary,€a€child€born€out€of€wedlock,€whose€paternity€wasÏnot€adjudicated€prior€to€the€death€of€the€father,€can€establish€the€right€to€inheritÏby€intestate€succession€by€asserting€that€right€against€the€estate€of€theÏdeceased€owner€of€the€property€in€which€an€interest€is€claimed€within€the€timeÏallowed€for€creditors€to€file€claims€against€the€estate€and€by€establishingÏpaternity€by€clear€and€convincing€proof.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€Cecil€Asberry€has€shown€by€clear€and€convincingÏproof€that€he€is€the€son€of€S.€D.€(Sam)€Asberry;€however,€he€did€not€assertÏthe€right€to€inherit€against€the€estate€of€S.€D.€(Sam)€Asberry,€the€owner€of€theÏproperty€in€which€an€interest€is€claimed,€within€the€time€required.€€The€estateÏwas€closed€in€1968;€Cecil€Asberry's€application€for€a€determination€of€paternityÏwas€not€made€until€this€suit€was€filed€in€1993.€€However,€this€holding€does€notÏresolve€the€rights€of€the€parties€in€this€case.€ÌÌà@ àòòò òESTOPPELóóó óÌÌà àAnother€issue€is€presented€by€the€pleadings€and€proof.€€ThatÏissue€is€whether€Vestel€Smithers€can€rely€upon€Cecil€Asberry's€delay€inÏseeking€an€adjudication€of€paternity.€€Cecil€Asberry€asserts€that€VestelÏSmithers€is€estopped€from€denying€his€ownership€of€an€interest€in€theÏproperty.€€He€bases€the€claim€of€estoppel€upon€the€recitations€made€byÏOrban€Asberry€in€the€instruments€of€conveyance€executed€by€Orban€Asberry,ÏBlanche€Bilbrey,€and€Cecil€Asberry,€in€which€Vestel€Smithers'€predecessor€inÏtitle€declared€that€he,€Blanche€Bilbrey,€and€Cecil€Asberry€were€the€children€andÏheirs€at€law€of€the€decedent€owner.€€€€ÌÌà àEstoppel€is€an€affirmative€defense€which€must€be€raised€in€theÏpleadings€and€proven€by€the€party€asserting€it.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€ðð€8.03;ÏòòEdwards€v.€Central€Motor€Co.óó,€38€Tenn.€App.€577,€277€S.W.2d€4l3,€416Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1954),€aff'd,€277€S.W.2d€417€(Tenn.€1955);€òòBorches€&€Co.€v.ÏArbuckle€Bros.óó,€111€Tenn.€498,€78€S.W.€266€(1903).€€Estoppel€by€deed€is€anÏaffirmative€defense€based€on€representations€made€by€a€party€in€a€deed.€ÍEssentially,€representations€made€by€a€party€to€a€deed€cannot€be€deniedÏlater€by€that€party€or€his€privies.ÌÌÓÓà8 à"Estoppel€by€deed€is€a€bar€which€precludes€oneÏparty€to€a€deed€and€his€privies€from€asserting€asÏagainst€the€other€party€and€his€privies€any€right€orÏtitle€in€derogation€of€the€deed,€or€from€denying€theÏtruth€of€any€material€facts€asserted€in€it."ÌÌÌòòÓ€ÓDenny€v.€Wilson€Countyóó,€198€Tenn.€677,€281€S.W.2d€671,€674€(1955)Ï(quoting€28€Am.€Jur.€2d€òòEstoppel€&€Waiveróó€ðð€4€(1966));€€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó:€€òòBlevins€v.ÏJohnson€Countyóó,€746€S.W.2d€678,€684€(Tenn.€1988).€€"Where€one€recognizesÏanother's€title€or€is€instrumental€in€another's€acquiring€title€he€is€estopped€toÏafterwards€deny€that€title."€€òòSpicer€v.€Kimesóó,€156€S.W.2d€334,€337€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1941).€€"The€privies€of€a€grantor€or€grantee€are€estopped€to€the€sameÏextent€as€the€original€parties€to€the€deed."€€òòIdóó.€€Estoppel€by€deed€appliesÏwhere€both€parties€were€grantors€or€grantees,€and€also€where€one€party€wasÏa€grantor€and€the€other€was€a€grantee.€€In€either€case,€an€individual's€propertyÏrights€are€being€recognized€by€the€other€party€or€parties€signing€the€deed.€ÏThat€recognition€of€rights€cannot€be€taken€back€at€a€later€time.ÌÌà àBlanche€Bilbrey€and€Orban€Asberry€joined€Cecil€Asberry€in€theÏexecution€of€two€warranty€deeds€and€a€lease.€€It€was€asserted€in€thoseÏinstruments€that€the€grantors€were€the€heirs€of€S.€D.€(Sam)€Asberry.€€The€proofÏshows€that€they€divided€the€proceeds€from€the€conveyances€equally.€€OrbanÏAsberry€would€be€estopped€from€denying€that€Cecil€Asberry€owns€a€one„thirdÏundivided€interest€in€the€real€property.€€Vestel€Smithers,€as€Orban€Asberry'sÍsuccessor€in€interest,€is€likewise€estopped.ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€ruling€of€the€Court€of€Appeals,€that€Cecil€Asberry€is€entitled€toÏa€one„third€undivided€interest€in€the€real€property€owned€by€Sam€Asberry,€isÏaffirmed.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedingsÏconsistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌà àCosts€are€taxed€to€Vestel€Smithers,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àReid,€J.ÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌBirch,€C.J.,€Drowota,€Anderson,Ì€€€and€White,€JJ.