ÿWPCñ! `nɱé>u±rz±pzI®­wÖ²0Ïò[¼RììX€I­Ë̱ü>& Úrl!(hÌ”~~œÁ¬§ñnfcšWÁ§N¨dÉpºmtíÓá/.Æ8•溢èÕ²ƒ?÷H9It ÎÓÀå=vAíø;[ žEõãŒhûÕ§MŠ&€ôföì gJ]ÑÙ‰ÁC¹èÔMH¤ê3 CßMcK5<ûÒaWü+KEõËN^ÝZ¨*¡£!íj)Kƒ†¤“Ü–_ ª9y‚ÏZ²ø·)÷ï6Ø•Ìó„œH^ô°é¾ßN ºRâYX¹ÿ{·Ž’¯Ð< ¦ˆ½lÒVËH‚¡0·(CôßvÄüéw¦ÍvSBªgÜ4©=Yà ø8Þ¤‰ þÓ*E«<§ô‘¼è´–ÏBkif¡?Zج€F7Ǭ!ƒxæ1ý’ÄQiØqœ·ÉØ!f~ÎŠì• ¢½+ê5}¤k(H†vó»]‘L}éìñžKà­[ËÍ탢JåQá ñˆ¼¯ wÔ*JâÚ-š‘Èæ¿Hüö{ )ÝL•sªà3966z¨kPÑv=‰§Ý?ƒv"‡.ž• zL€A#í:®So·‚I",Pq.[±¤«´¹_Õ̇jÈt=E¼a––b#É\ %% N+ 0ˆ- U*Nµ p zs zí Òg Ò9^ w4Æ/ÆõÆ»ÆGNVX mZEqssU"@ 0DÍM¯^^ §'''''''''''''''bÎÎÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ 0ëìììì B×× 0¤ô D5˜ D-Í 0Kúú ASEƘ 0¤^ 0D! A«F!˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular DrowotaAdolphoChadwickTindellDunganMaryvillelitumStidhamGrattPritchardMobleyRodellMcAllisterGoode contestabilityunadjudicatedW]hen ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt†d/Ï o=/.bk ¯¦Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒRÀ#$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôí!ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defendantððs€brief€states€that€the€hearing€was€ð ðquite€informal,ðð€and€that€no€testimony€was€presented€to€theÐ ° Ðcourt.(ÈhH  Z‹(Times New Roman (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó CÝ ƒRÀ#$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôí!ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôí!òòôí!ÔPrior€to€the€initiation€of€the€probate€case,€a€conservatorship€case€had€been€filed€concerning€the€deceased.€€InÐ ° Ðthat€matter,€the€deceased€was€apparently€found€to€be€incompetent€because€a€conservator€was€appointed.€€Little€else€isÐ tÄ Ðknown€about€that€case,€or€the€present€one,€as€there€is€no€transcript€of€the€evidence€or€a€statement€of€the€evidence.€Ô#†ôí!òòôí!~#Ô ¥Ý ƒRÀ#$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôí!ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€an€appeal€as€of€right€to€the€Supreme€Court,€Court€of€Appeals,€or€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€notice€ofÐ ° Ðappeal€must€be€filed€with€the€trial€court€clerk€within€thirty€days€after€the€date€of€entry€of€the€judgment€appealed€from.€Ð tÄ ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(a).€ Ý ƒRÀ#$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôí!ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€do€not€decide€in€this€appeal€the€intrinsic€correctness€of€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€reject€the€three€wills,Ð ° Ðas€that€issue€is€not€before€us.€€Even€if€the€issue€had€been€raised€in€a€timely€appeal,€we€would€be€unable€to€decide€itÐ tÄ Ðbecause€no€transcript€or€statement€of€the€evidence€has€been€filed.€€In€the€absence€of€a€transcript€or€statement€of€theÐ 8ˆ Ðevidence,€a€presumption€arises€that€there€was€sufficient€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€òòÔ_ÔMfrsÔ_Ô.€Consol.€Ð üL ÐServ.€v.€Rodellóó,€42€S.W.3d€846,€865€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€ Ý ƒRÀ#$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôí!ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€resolving€the€case,€the€trial€judge€stated€that€he€ð ðconsidered€both€the€probate€and€conservatorship€recordsÐ ° Ðof€the€decedent.ðð€€As€noted€previously,€the€records€of€the€conservatorship€proceeding€were€not€filed€by€the€parties€in€thisÐ tÄ Ðcase.€- ù- Ñ ° Ñ(|G2À#$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Põ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôí!ò»»Ô d(|3Ç’$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Põ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ç’$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Põ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Põ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Põ»»»ÔÑ8€¡XXdì»»d8ÑÑ€0OY Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡îE8PõÔÔ‡îE8îîîE8ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Põ»îîE8#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€4,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X¡X»¼PõÔÌò òÔ#†¼Põ»XX¡##ÔIN€RE:€€ESTATE€OF€DONALD€BEN€HENDERSON,€DECEASED,€JEFFÐ úJ ÐHENDERSON€V.€KENNETH€HENDERSONòòóóÔ‡X¡X»¼PõÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Appeals,€Eastern€SectionÐ  ^ ЀProbate€Court€for€Monroe€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„116,€Edwin€C.€Harris,€JudgeÐ æ 6  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„01155„SC„R11„CV€„€Filed€November€4,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Põ»XX¡Ø#ÔÔ‡X¡X»¼PõÔÌWe€granted€review€in€this€case€to€decide€whether€a€probate€courtððs€Ô#†X¡XXX¡<#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡Ôrejection€of€all€purported€willsÐ d´ Ðsubmitted€for€probate€and€the€entering€of€an€order€finding€that€the€decedent€died€intestate€constitutesÐ P  Ða€final€order€for€purposes€of€appeal.€€Jeff€Henderson,€the€plaintiff„appellant,€asserts€that€the€trialÐ <Œ Ðcourtððs€order€rejecting€the€decedentððs€wills€and€finding€that€he€died€intestate€Ô#†X¡XXX¡î#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡Ôwas€not€a€final€orderÐ (x Ðbecause€the€trial€court€did€not€certify€it€as€such€under€Rule€54.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÐ d ÐProcedure.€€The€defendant„appellee,€Kenneth€Henderson,€responds€that€the€rejection€of€the€submittedÐ P Ðwills€and€the€finding€of€intestacy€represent€a€final€judgment€which€must€be€appealed,€if€at€all,€withinÐ ì< Ðthirty€days.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€agreed€with€the€defendant,€and€held€that€the€probate€courtððs€orderÐ Ø( Ðrejecting€the€wills€for€probate€was€a€final€judgment€that€had€to€be€appealed€within€thirty€days.€€SinceÐ Ä Ðthe€plaintiffððs€notice€of€appeal€was€filed€beyond€thirty€days,€the€appeal€was€dismissed.€€Ô#†X¡XXX¡²#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡ÔAfter€carefulÐ ° Ðconsideration,€we€have€determined€that€the€intermediate€court€correctly€resolved€the€case.€Ð œì ÐÔ#†X¡XXX¡à #ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡ÔAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€affirmedÔ#†X¡XXX¡´ #ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡Ô.€Ð ˆØ ÐÓ6ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Appeal€by€Permission;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€Affirmed.ó óÐ `!°  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€C.J.óó€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,Ð 8#ˆ" ÐAdolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€€Janice€M.€Holder,óó€and€òòóóWòòilliamóó€M.€Bòòarkeróó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð $$t# ÐÌEric€J.€Morrison€and€Chadwick€B.€Tindell,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Jeff€Henderson.Ð ü%L!% ÐÌCharles€Dungan,€Maryville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Kenneth€Henderson.Ð Ô'$#' ÐÓí ÓÔ#†¼Põ»XX¡e#ÔÌÌÌÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ -X(,ý ÐÔ_Ô‡ò òòòÔ‡X¡X»¼PõÔFactual€and€Procedural€Backgroundóóó óÐ ° ÐòòóóÓ  ÓÌà  àThis€case€involves€a€dispute€between€the€plaintiff,€Jeff€Henderson,€the€decedentððs€grandson,Ð ˆØ Ðand€the€Ô#†X¡XXX¡3 #ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡Ôdefendant,€Kenneth€Henderson,€the€decedentððs€son,€over€the€estate€of€Donald€BenÐ tÄ ÐHenderson.€€€After€Mr.€Hendersonððs€death€in€December€1998,€the€plaintiff€filed€a€petition€in€theÐ `° ÐMonroe€County€Probate€Court€seeking€to€admit€to€probate€a€document€dated€August€21,€1996,Ð L œ Ðpurporting€to€be€the€decedentððs€will.€€A€revocation€of€this€will,€dated€July€28,€1997,€was€alsoÐ 8 ˆ Ðsubmitted€to€the€probate€court.€€Subsequently,€the€defendant€submitted€for€probate€a€document€datedÐ $ t ÐOctober€20,€1998,€likewise€purportingÔ#†X¡XXX¡]#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡Ô€to€be€the€decedentððs€will.€€A€third€document€purporting€to€beÐ  ` Ðthe€decedentððs€will€dated€February€27,€1986,€was€also€filed€with€the€court.€€Thus,€the€parties€Ô#†X¡XXX¡#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡ÔfiledÐ ü L  Ða€total€of€three€wills€and€a€revocation€with€the€probate€court.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAfter€holding€a€hearing,€the€nature€of€which€is€unclear,׃Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€onÐ À  ÐOctober€18,€2001,€finding€that€the€1986€will€was€revoked€by€the€1996€will,€that€the€1997€revocationÐ ¬ü  Ðrevoked€the€1996€will,€and€that€the€deceased€was€not€competent€to€execute€the€1998€will€because€heÐ ˜è  Ðwas€subject€to€a€conservatorship.׃,×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Having€found€that€none€of€the€three€documents€submitted€by€theÐ „Ô  Ðparties€should€be€admitted€to€probate,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€decedent€died€intestate.€€TheÐ pÀ Ðcourtððs€order€also€appointed€an€administrator€ad€litem,€and€concluded€by€stating€that€the€ð ðproponentsÐ \¬ Ðof€the€wills€submitted€to€this€Court€file€their€will€contests€and/or€counterclaims€forthwith.ðð€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àOn€December€6,€2001,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€relieve€the€administrator€ad€litem€ofÐ  p Ðhis€duties€and€to€appoint€himself,€the€defendant,€as€the€personal€representative€of€his€fatherððs€estate.€Ð  \ ÐThe€motion€recited€that€more€than€thirty€days€had€expired€since€the€entry€of€the€order€rejecting€theÐ øH Ðwills€submitted€for€probate€and€the€finding€that€the€decedent€had€died€intestate.€€Therefore,€the€orderÐ ä4 Ðwas€a€final€judgment€and€as€such€was€res€judicata€as€to€all€issues€related€to€the€validity€of€the€wills.€Ð Ð  ÐThe€motion€further€indicated€that€the€defendant€was€the€only€child€of€the€deceased€and€hence€his€onlyÐ ¼  Ðheir€given€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€intestacy.€€The€plaintiff€filed€a€response€opposing€the€motion,Ð ¨ø Ðalong€with€a€complaint€challenging€the€validity€of€one€of€the€rejected€wills.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€entered€an€order€on€April€23,€2002,€appointing€the€defendant€as€the€personalÐ l¼ Ðrepresentative€of€the€decedentððs€estate.€€The€order€further€found€that€the€earlier€order€of€October€18,Ð X ¨ Ðâ â2001,€which€rejected€the€wills€and€held€that€the€deceased€died€intestate,€was€a€final€order.€€Ô_ÔTheÐ D!” Ðplaintiff€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€on€May€13,€2002,€nearly€seven€months€after€the€trial€court€rejectedÐ ° Ðthe€wills€and€made€the€finding€of€intestacy.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€Court€of€Appeals€concluded€that€it€did€not€have€jurisdiction€to€hear€the€caseÐ tÄ Ðbecause€the€plaintiff€did€not€file€a€notice€of€appeal€within€thirty€days€of€the€entry€of€the€orderÐ `° Ðrejecting€the€wills€submitted€for€probate.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€intermediate€court€reasoned€that€the€order€of€OctoberÐ L œ Ð18,€2001€adjudicated€all€of€the€issues€related€to€the€propounded€wills,€and€that€the€language€in€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðorder€stating€that€ð ðthe€proponents€of€the€wills€submitted€to€this€Court€file€their€will€contests€and/orÐ $ t Ðcounterclaims€forthwithðð€was€ð ðsuperfluous€and€did€not€change€the€character€of€the€final€order.ðð€Ð  ` ÐThus,€the€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€when€a€court€rejects€all€purported€wills€submitted€for€probateÐ ü L  Ðand€enters€an€order€finding€that€the€deceased€died€intestate,€the€order€constitutes€a€final€order€forÐ è 8  Ðpurposes€of€appeal.€€Ô#†X¡XXX¡ú#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡ÔAccordingly,€the€intermediate€court€dismissed€the€appeal.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÔ#†X¡XXX¡Y##ÔÓ °X°œXÓÔ‡X¡XXX¡Ôò òòòÓ  ÓÌà  àà ` àà0 ¸ àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àAnalysisóóó óЬü À(#À(# ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àWe€begin€our€analysis€of€this€case€by€observing€that€in€a€civil€case€an€appeal€as€of€right€mayÐ „Ô  Ðbe€taken€only€after€the€entry€of€a€final€judgment.€€òòóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(a).€€A€final€judgment€is€one€thatÐ pÀ Ðresolves€all€the€issues€in€the€case,€ð ðleaving€nothing€else€for€the€trial€court€to€do.ðð€€òòState€ex€rel.Ð \¬ ÐMcAllister€v.€Goodeóó,€968€S.W.2d€834,€840€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€In€contrast,€an€order€thatÐ H˜ Ðadjudicates€fewer€than€all€of€the€claims,€rights,€or€liabilities€of€all€the€parties€is€not€final,€but€isÐ 4„ Ðsubject€to€revision€any€time€before€the€entry€of€a€final€judgment.€òòóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(a).€€Such€anÐ  p Ðorder€is€interlocutory€or€interim€in€nature€and€generally€cannot€be€appealed€as€of€right.€€òòId.óó€òòóó€However,Ð  \ Ðthere€is€a€mechanism,€found€in€Rule€54.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÔ#†X¡XXX¡ $#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡Ô,€by€which€aÐ øH Ðparty€may€appeal€an€order€that€adjudicates€fewer€than€all€of€the€claims,€rights,€or€liabilities€of€fewerÐ ä4 Ðthan€all€the€parties.€€Rule€54.02€provides€as€follows:Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àWhen€more€than€one€claim€for€relief€is€present€in€an€action€.€.€.€or€when€multipleÐ ¨ø Ðparties€are€involved,€the€court€.€.€.€may€direct€the€entry€of€a€final€judgment€as€to€oneÐ ”ä Ðor€more€but€fewer€than€all€of€the€claims€or€parties€ò òonly€upon€an€expressÐ €Ð Ðdetermination€that€there€is€no€just€reason€for€delay€and€upon€an€expressÐ pÀ Ðdirection€for€the€entry€of€judgmentó ó.€€In€the€absence€of€such€determination€andÐ \ ¬ Ðdirection,€any€order€or€other€form€of€decision,€however€designated,€that€adjudicatesÐ L!œ Ðfewer€than€all€the€claims€or€the€rights€and€liabilities€of€fewer€than€all€the€parties€shallÐ 8"ˆ  Ðnot€terminate€the€action€as€to€any€of€the€claims€or€parties,€and€the€order€or€other€formÐ $#t! Ðof€decision€is€subject€to€revision€at€any€time€before€the€entry€of€the€judgmentÐ $`" Ðadjudicating€all€the€claims€and€the€rights€and€liabilities€of€all€the€parties.€Ðü$L #Ð Ð  ÐÌ(Emphasis€added).Ô#†X¡XXX¡Ç(#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡Ô€€Thus,€Rule€54.02€requires,€as€a€prerequisite€to€an€appeal€as€of€right€of€anÐ Ô&$"% Ðinterlocutory€order,€the€certification€by€the€trial€judge€that€the€judge€has€directed€the€entry€of€a€finalÐ À'#& ÐÔ_Ôjudgment€as€to€one€or€more€but€fewer€than€all€of€the€issues€of€the€parties,€and€that€the€court€has€madeÐ ° Ðan€express€determination€that€there€is€no€just€reason€for€delay.€€òòStidham€v.€Fickle€Heirsóó,€643€S.W.2dÐ œì Ð324,€325€(Tenn.€1982).€€Such€certification€by€the€trial€court€creates€a€final€judgment€appealable€asÐ ˆØ Ðof€right.€€òòId.óó€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àWith€the€foregoing€principles€in€mind,€we€turn€to€the€plaintiffððs€contention€that€the€order€ofÐ L œ Ðthe€probate€court€entered€on€October€18,€2001,€was€not€a€final€order€that€had€to€be€appealed€withinÐ 8 ˆ Ðthirty€days.€€The€plaintiff€argues€that€the€order€did€not€adjudicate€all€of€the€issues€in€the€case€givenÐ $ t Ðthat€the€order€directs€the€parties€to€ð ðfile€their€will€contests€and/or€counterclaims€forthwith.ðð€Ð  ` ÐAccording€to€the€plaintiff,€that€language€contemplates€further€proceedings€regarding€theÐ ü L  Ðcontestability€of€the€wills€previously€submitted€to€the€court.€€The€plaintiff€further€suggests€that€thereÐ è 8  Ðare€unadjudicated€rights€still€at€issue,€such€as€potential€claims€against€the€estate.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àWe€are€not€persuaded€by€the€plaintiffððs€arguments,€and€agree€with€the€finding€of€the€CourtÐ ¬ü  Ðof€Appeals€that€the€language€in€the€order€about€filing€ð ðwill€contests€and/or€counterclaimsðð€Ô#†X¡XXX¡ .#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡ÔwasÐ ˜è  Ðsuperfluous€because€there€were€no€wills€admitted€to€probate€to€contest.€€The€only€issue€before€theÐ „Ô  Ðprobate€court€was€whether€the€deceased€had€a€valid€will,€and€the€only€claim€for€relief€sought€by€theÐ pÀ Ðparties€was€the€admission€of€the€various€wills€to€probate.€€The€unambiguous€rejection€by€the€trialÐ \¬ Ðcourt€of€those€wills€and€the€finding€of€intestacy€left€nothing€further€to€be€decided€with€respect€toÐ H˜ Ðthose€instruments.€€Simply€put,€there€were€no€wills€to€set€aside€in€a€contest€proceeding.€€The€trialÐ 4„ Ðjudge€himself€found€in€a€later€order€that€his€previous€order€of€October€18,€2001€was€meant€to€be€aÐ  p Ðfinal€order.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€also€relies€upon€Rule€54.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€inÐ ä4 Ðarguing€that€unless€the€trial€court€makes€an€express€determination€that€there€is€no€just€reason€forÐ Ð  Ðdelay€and€that€the€judgment€is€a€final€judgment,€the€order€is€subject€to€revision€and€cannot€beÐ ¼  Ðappealed.€€The€plaintiff€maintains€that€the€probate€courtððs€order€of€October€18,€2001€Ô#†X¡XXX¡5#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡Ôcannot€beÐ ¨ø Ðregarded€as€a€final€judgment€because€the€order€did€not€contain€the€certification€required€by€RuleÐ ”ä Ð54.02.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAgain,€we€are€not€persuaded€by€the€plaintiffððs€contention.€€In€our€view,€Rule€54.02€does€notÐ X ¨ Ðapply€to€this€case€because€the€only€issue€before€the€trial€court€at€the€time€was€whether€the€decedentÐ D!” Ðhad€a€valid€will.€€The€trial€court€found€that€none€of€the€three€instruments€were€valid€wills,€and€thusÐ 0"€  Ðthe€order€was€final€for€purposes€of€appeal.€€It€is€apparent€based€on€the€scant€record€before€usÔ#†X¡XXX¡':#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡Ô€that€theÐ #l! Ðcase€did€not€involve€multiple€claims€that€needed€to€be€resolved.€€Accordingly,€it€was€not€necessaryÐ $X" Ðfor€the€trial€court€to€make€the€certification€required€by€Rule€54.02.€Ô#†X¡XXX¡ï<#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡ÔÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àFinally,€we€wish€to€note€that€we€agree€with€the€plaintiffððs€observation€that€it€is€important€toÐ Ì&"% Ðestablish€a€degree€of€certainty€as€to€the€finality€of€intestacy€orders€so€that€parties€know€when€toÐ ¸'#& Ðappeal.€€To€that€end,€we€embrace€an€observation€made€by€a€court€more€than€a€century€ago:€€ð ð[W]henÐ ¤(ô#' Ða€will€has€been€propounded€by€a€party€interested,€and€fairly€rejected€on€the€merits,€it€would€defeatÐ )à$( Ðthe€policy€of€the€law,€and€be€productive€of€many€mischiefs,€if€it€could€be€again€propounded€by€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðsame€party€or€by€others€who€might€be€interested,€and€the€contest€thus€renewed€from€time€to€time.ðð€Ð h+¸&* ÐòòShultz€v.€Shultzóó,€51€Va.€(10€Gratt.)€358€(1853).€€It€seems€to€us€that€once€a€court€has€determined€thatÐ ° Ða€will€should€not€be€admitted€to€probate,€it€would€indeed€be€ð ðproductive€of€many€mischiefsððÔ#†X¡XXX¡ >#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡Ô€to€allowÐ œì Ða€contest€essentially€raising€the€same€issues€after€the€time€for€appeal€has€passed.€Ô#†X¡XXX¡%B#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡Ô€Thus,€a€judgmentÐ ˆØ Ðrejecting€a€will€ð ðmust€be€regarded€as€a€judgment€against€all€claiming€under€it€.€.€.€which,€beingÐ tÄ Ðadjudications€upon€the€subject€matter,€are€regarded€as€final€and€conclusive€not€only€in€the€courts€inÐ `° Ðwhich€they€are€propounded,€but€all€others€in€which€the€question€arises.ðð€€Jack€W.€Robinson,€Sr.€andÐ L œ ÐJeff€Mobley,€1€òòPritchard€on€the€Law€of€€Wills€and€Administration€of€Estatesóó€ðð€340€(5thòòóó€ed.€1994).€Ô#†X¡XXX¡ÙB#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡ÔÐ 8 ˆ ÐAccordingly,€we€hold€that€when€a€court€rejects€all€purported€wills€submitted€for€probate€and€entersÐ $ t Ðan€order€finding€that€the€deceased€died€intestate,€the€order€constitutes€a€final€order€for€purposes€ofÐ  ` Ðappeal.€Ô#†X¡XXX¡ E#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡ÔÐ ü L  Ðà  àÔ#†X¡XXX¡rF#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡Ô¹Ó  Óò òòòConclusionÐ Ô$  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àóóó óAfter€carefullyò ò€ó óconsidering€the€record€and€relevant€authorities,€we€conclude€that€the€lowerÐ ¬ü  Ðcourts€correctly€found€that€the€trial€courtððs€order€of€October€18,€2001,€was€a€final€order€that€had€toÐ œì  Ðbe€appealed,€if€at€all,€within€thirty€days.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X¡XXX¡ÕF#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡Ô€€Ô#†X¡XXX¡ÚH#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡ÔSince€the€notice€of€appeal€in€this€case€was€filed€beyondÐ ˆØ  Ðthirty€days,€the€Court€of€Appeals€correctly€dismissed€the€appeal€as€untimely.€€Accordingly,€theÐ tÄ Ðjudgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff,€JeffÐ `° ÐHenderson,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€Ð Lœ ÐÌà  àÔ#†X¡XXX¡I#ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡ÔÌÌÌÓ  Ó__à @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àà @À àà @ à___________________________________€Ð è8 Ðà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àà @À àà @ àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,€CHIEF€JUSTICEÔ#†X¡XXX¡ôJ#ÔÔ#†¼Põ»XX¡D#Ô