WPC [Cq ʼnx+\UsCT YFx*֤AXτ*'LHx ;`j9C< p&UО\ܟevmW$7qjFgߞ=%$"wm^d˜qٶa`[߾[! "olr)GX#\n"JՀ*fhtS׺q6^|$ï`%{j9X3˴i5'?utJ G\~܀%()=1Y-A9--?"7rYr맮z#zjZ?d $x{t'8k]`m'XnUlB CYfP;=\R' .*jx ` `@EL` 8ttxP( tߛkATNASHVILLE@@/  Ӏ  `     h      R J  `     h      p FORPUBLICATION >6 М  `     h      p Filed:February1,1999    INREESTATEOFFOSTERHUME,III  ) p      x    М `     h     )THEUNIVERSITYOFTHESOUTH  ) p DAVIDSONPROBATE    `     h     ) `  Appellant, h     ) p    zr  `     h     ) `     h     ) p HON.FRANKG.CLEMENT,JR., F> МVs. `     h     ) p JUDGE ,$ М `     h     )̛ `     h     )MEREDITHKLANK h     )   `     h     ) `  Appellee. h     ) p No.01S019709PB00182   `     h     ̛̜ ForAppellant:   h      p ForAppellee: " М J.RichardLodge,Jr. h      p NormanGillis $! E.CliftonKnowles   h      p Nashville,Tennessee %" Bass,Berry&Sims,PLC h      p  &# Nashville,Tennessee h      p JohnDrummond x'p $ М `     h      p Nashville,Tennessee ̜ ̛̜XX Y #  Y8 #l{@)DOPINION 1 *. XXl{̜COURTOFAPPEALSREVERSED;̜CASEREMANDEDTOTRIALCOURT.   p      x ANDERSON,C.J. :37   :38w  ` Wegrantedthisappealtodeterminewhethertheprobateruleofademptionbyextinctionappliestothespecificbequestofahouse,wherethehouseissoldatforeclosurebeforethetestatorsdeathandsalesproceedsrepresentingthetestatorsinterestareidentifiableafterhisdeath. ` Thetrialcourt,emphasizingthetestatorsintentasreflectedbythewill,concludedthatthebequesthadnotbeenadeemedbecausetherewereproceedsremainingfromtheforeclosuresale.Theforeclosuresaleproceedswereorderedtobedistributedtothebeneficiaryofthespecificbequest.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmed. ` Afterourreviewoftherecordandapplicableauthority,weconcludethattheforeclosureofthehousepriortothetestatorsdeathresultedinanademptionbyextinctionofthespecificbequestandthattheforeclosuresaleproceedsshouldhavebeendistributedtotheresiduarybeneficiaryoftheestate.Accordingly,wereversethejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings.  BACKGROUND  %"    ` FosterHume,III,alicensedattorney,executedavalidholographicwilldatedAugust1,1990.Inadditiontootherbequests,HumespecificallydevisedhishouseinAtlantatohisniece,MeredithKlank( Klank),statinginhiswill, myAtl.Houseto...Meredith.(Clank[sic]Ibelieve).Humenamedtheappellant,UniversityoftheSouth( University),residuarybeneficiary. ` HumepurchasedtheAtlantahousein1986,subjecttoamortgageinfavorofNationsBanc.HumefaithfullymadehismortgagepaymentstoNationsBancuntilthelatesummerof1991.BecauseofHumesdelinquency,NationsBancsoldthehouseat foreclosurebeforeHumesdeathonNovember12,1991. 706  ` Thesurplusproceedsof$55,745.07,aftersatisfyingthemortgagedebt,were paidtotheestatesExecutrix,whotookthepositionTTthattheTTAtlantahousehadbeenadeemedandTTthattheTTproceedsshouldbepaidtotheUniversity,theresiduarybeneficiary,andnottoKlank,thebeneficiaryofthespecificbequest.Klank,claimingtherighttothesurplusproceeds,filedanexceptiontotheExecutrixsfinalaccountinginDavidsonCountyProbateCourt.TheExecutrixmovedtohaveherfinalaccountingapproved. ` TheDavidsonCountyProbateCourtdeniedtheExecutrixsmotionandorderedthattheproceedsbepaidtoKlank.RelyingonthelackofproofintherecordtoindicateHumehadactualknowledgeoftheforeclosureproceeding,thecourtreasonedthatHumehadnotvoluntarilypartedwithhishouseandthusmusthaveintendedKlanktoreceiveit,asindicatedbythewill. ` TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourt,findingthatanademptionbyextinctionhadnotoccurredinthiscasefortwomainreasons.First,thecourtnotedthat Testatorsonlycontributiontotheforeclosurewashisinabilityorfailuretopaythedebtwhichcannotbepresumedtobeavoluntaryact;andthereisnoevidencethatitwasdeliberateorvoluntary.Second,theCourtofAppealsdistinguishedbetweencasesinwhichtheforeclosuresaleTTwasTTinsufficienttosatisfythedebt,whereanademptionbyextinctionwouldoccur,andcasesinwhichtheforeclosuresaleresultedinsurplusproceeds,whereanademptionbyextinctionwouldnotoccur. ` WegrantedtheUniversitysapplicationforpermissiontoappeal.   ANALYSIS 3,2     ` Theonlyissuepresentedforourreview,whetherthebequestoftheAtlanta 5.4 househasbeenadeemedbyextinction,ispurelyaquestionoflaw;thus,ourreviewisdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectnessgiventhejudgmentsofeitherthetrialcourt d9\28 ortheCourtofAppeals.E.g.,CityofTullahomav.BedfordCounty,938S.W.2d408,  412(Tenn.1997).   ` Thepartiesdisputewhetherthespecificbequestwasadeemedbythe l d foreclosuresaleandwhetherthetestatorsintentisrelevanttotheissue.NotingthatthespecificbequestatissueinvolvesHumes Atl[anta]house,notHumesinterestinthehouse,theUniversityarguesthatthebequesttoKlankwasadeemedbytheforeclosuresaleandthatevenifHumesintentcouldbediscernedfromtherecord,thatintentisirrelevant.Conversely,KlankarguesboththattheTestatorsintentionisrelevanttothepresentcaseandthattheTestatorswilltransferredhisinterestinthehouse,whichatthetimeofhisdeathwasrepresentedbytheproceedsremainingaftertheforeclosuresale. ` Webeginouranalysisbynotingthatademptionisgenerallydefinedas theextinction,alienation,withdrawal,orsatisfactionofthelegacybysomeactofthetestatorbywhichanintentiontorevokeisindicated:thedoingofsomeactwithregardtothesubjectmatterwhichinterfereswiththeoperationofthewill.E.g.,American #  Trust&BankingCo.v.Balfour,TT138Tenn.385,198TTS.W.70,71(Tenn.1917).Implicit %" inTennesseeademptioncasesisthenotionthatthetwopartsofthisdefinitioneachrespectivelycorrespondtothetwotypesofademptionrecognizedinTennessee,ademptionbysatisfactionandademptionbyextinction.See,e.g.,Rhodesv.TTKebke, *#( 179Tenn.480,TT167S.W.2d345TT(1943)TT(ademptionbysatisfactioncase).Thepresentcaseinvolvestheissueofademptionbyextinction. ` Ademptionbyextinctionresultsbecauseof thedoingofsomeactwithregardtothesubjectmatterwhichinterfereswiththeoperationofthewill.TTBalfour,TT198S.W.at 3,2 71.Inthesecases:8 ` [t]herule[ofademptionbyextinction]prevailswithoutregardtothe r8j17 intentionofthetestatororthehardshipofthecase,andispredicated X9P28 upontheprinciplethatthesubjectofthegiftisannihilatedoritscondition >:639 soalteredthatnothingremainstowhichthetermsofthebequestcanapply. ` (#` (# )&Wigginsv.Cheatham,TT143Tenn.406,225TTS.W.1040,1041TT(1920)TT(emphasisadded)   (citationomitted).Inotherwords,itonlymattersthatthesubjectofthespecificbequestnolongerexistsbecauseof thedoingofsomeact;itisirrelevantwhoorwhatinitiates thedoing.TTBalfour,TT198S.W.at71.    ` Ademptionbysatisfaction,ontheotherhand,referstothesituationinwhichthetestator givesinhislifetimetoalegateewhathehadlefthiminhiswill.TTRhodes,167 h` S.W.2dTTat348.Inademptionbysatisfactioncases,thetestatordealswiththelegateeinsuchawaysoastoresultinan extinction,alienation,withdrawal,orsatisfactionofthelegacyduringthetestatorslifetime.Balfour,198S.W.at71.Insuchcases,the  testatorsintentisrelevanttodeterminewhetherthetestatorsactionregardingthelegatee amountstoawithdrawalofthegiftfromtheoperationofthewill.Rhodes,167 d\ S.W.2dat348.Accordingly,aprimarydistinctionbetweenademptionbysatisfactioncasesandademptionbyextinctioncasesisthattheintentofthetestatorisrelevanttotheformerbutnottothelatter,andthattheactofextinctionmaybetheactionofanyone. ` TTThisTTrulethattheintentofthetestatorisTTirrelevantTTinTTademptionTTbyextinctionTTcasesisinharmonywiththemodernholdingsfoundinthemajorityofstates.E.gU.U, *#( McGeev.McGee,413A.2d72(R.I.1980).InMcGee,theRhodeIslandSupreme ,%* Courtdefinestheruleandpersuasivelyanalyzesthepolicysupportingit.TheMcGee .', courtstatedwithrespecttothe inspecietest:8 ` Thistestfocusesontwoquestionsonly:(1)whetherthegiftisaspecificlegacyand,ifitis,(2)whetheritisfoundintheestateatthetimeofthetestatorsdeath.Theextinctionofthepropertybequeathedworksanademptionregardlessofthetestatorsintent. ` (#` (#  `     h     ...8 ` Moreover,undertheprinciplesenunciatedbyLordThurlow...onlythefactofchangeorextinction,notthereasonforthechangeorextinction,istrulyrelevant.Thevastmajorityofjurisdictionsadheretothisrule.This inspecietheoryofademption,althoughitmayoccasionallyresultina >:639 failuretoeffectuatetheactualintentofatestator,hasmanyadvantages.Significantamongtheseadvantagesissimplicityofapplication,asopposedtoadhocdeterminationofintentfromextrinsicevidenceineachparticularcase.Thistheoryfurtherhastheadvantagesofstability,uniformity,andpredictability. ` (#` (# Id.at7677(citationsomitted). R J  ` TheruleofademptionbyextinctionhasbeenappliedinseveralTennesseecasessimilartothecasebeforeus.Forexample,inFordv.Cottrell,141Tenn.169,   207S.W.734(Tenn.1918),thetestatorspecificallybequeathedcertaininterestsinahousewhichheownedatthetimeheexecutedhiswill.Priortotestatorsdeath,hesoldthehouse.ThisCourtfoundthat [a]tthedeathofthe[testator]thespecificpropertyinquestionhas[sic]beensold...andwasnot,therefore,inexistence.Id.at  737.Weheldthatthespecificbequesthadbeenadeemedorextinguishedandthattheproceedsfromthesaleofthepropertyduringtestatorslifetimeformedpartofthegeneralestate.Id. d\  `  ` Justayearearlier,inBalfour,thisCourtannounced therulethataspecific ! legacyisadeemedwhentherehasbeenamaterialalterationorchangeinthesubjectmatter,andthatthepropertyintowhichitwasconvertedinsuchchangecannotbesubstitutedasorforthespecificbequest.Id.at71.Thetestatorbequeathedlife `'X $ insurancepolicyproceedstohisdaughter.Priortohisdeath,thetestatorcollectedthecashsurrendervaluesofthepolicieswhichhelaterinvestedinrealestatemortgagenotes.Applyingtherule,thisCourtheldthatthespecificbequestofthelifeinsurancepolicyproceedshadbeenadeemed.Id. .',  `  ` Applyingtheforegoingrule,weconcludethatthespecificbequestoftheAtlantapropertywasadeemedinitsentiretybytheforeclosuresaleregardlessofHumespresumedintentions.MuchlikethespecificbequestinFord,atHumesdeath, the 5.4 specificpropertyinquestionha[d]beensold...and[i]snot,therefore,inexistence.Id.at737.TheonlydifferencebetweenthesaleinFordandthesaleinthepresent X9P28 caseistheidentityoftheseller.ItisofnosignificancethatathirdpartyandnotHumeinitiatedthesaleinthepresentcasebecause,aspreviouslystated,theruleofademptionbyextinctionapplieswithoutregardtothetestatorsintentions.Thus,theforeclosuresaleconstituted thedoingofsomeactwithregardtothesubjectmatterwhichinterfereswiththeoperationofthewill.Balfour,198S.W.at71.Accordingly,in 80 ourview,theforeclosuresalepriortoHumesdeathadeemedthespecificbequestofthehouse. ` Wefurtherconcludethattheproceedscannotbesubstitutedforthespecificbequestofthehousebecause aspecificlegacyisadeemedwhentherehasbeenamaterialalterationorchangeinthesubjectmatter,and...thepropertyintowhichitwasconvertedinsuchchangecannotbesubstitutedasorforthespecificbequest.Balfour198S.W.at71.Thechangeinforminvolvedinthiscaseisstrikinglysimilarto  thechangeinformwhichresultedinanademptionbyextinctioninFord.Justasthe d\ proceedsresultingfromthesaleofthehouseinFordformedpartofthegeneralestate, 0 ( Id.at737,sodotheproceedsresultingfromthesaleofthehouseinthepresentcase. ! Accordingly,weholdthattheforeclosuresaleresultedinsucha materialalterationtothesubjectmatterofthespecificbequestsothattheproceeds cannotbesubstitutedasorforthespecificbequest.Balfour,198S.W.at71. `'X $    CONCLUSION   ` Weconcludethatthetestatorsintentisirrelevantindecidingthequestionof ,%* whetheraspecificbequesthasbeenadeemedbyextinction.Wefurtherconcludethataforeclosuresalesoalterstheformofthespecificbequestofahousethatanademptionbyextinctionresultsregardlessofwhetheridentifiableproceedsremainfromtheforeclosuresale.WethereforereversethejudgmentsofthetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealsandremandtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellee. V:N39  `     h      p _______________________________ `     h      p RILEYANDERSON,CHIEFJUSTICE NPANELNPOcOPQConcurQ:    RRWr )<,(j 8` `@E  ` 8ttxPX  rߛWDrowota,VBirch,VHolder,andBarker,JJ.S S