ÿWPC/  …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µUHÝb% 0D- 0Dq w@µ 4õ  0l 0D„ 0JÈ  0T 0^n BÌ 0hé 0rQ 0|à 0†? 0Å 1uU 0dÊ D3. 0@aU >¡U*ßU 6 y?B)¸DCá AM$U*q›~³1v~9vÓ· AOŠÆÙ 0DŸ D/ã B ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÑ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡<à09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular- ù-(3¯$§§Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý ðñDòóôEõö ÷øùÓ€%€X$ÔôB3|x((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô!"#$% ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ 'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times< Œ 9p`(Courier New oÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ )ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ% Line 7 d44447Border 1dd€-5Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÔ€7ÔÔ€7ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€7XÔÌÌò òMarch€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€7ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó tÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ôÔò òà8 àContracts€to€make€or€revoke€wills.„„ó ó(a)€AÏcontract€to€make€a€will€or€devise,€or€not€to€revoke€aÏwill€or€devise,€or€to€die€intestate€can€be€establishedÏonly€by:ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€(1)€Provisions€of€a€will€stating€materialÏprovisions€of€the€contract;ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€(2)€An€express€reference€in€a€will€to€a€contractÏand€extrinsic€evidence€proving€the€terms€of€theÏcontract;€or€ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€(3)€A€writing€signed€by€the€decedent€evidencing€theÏcontract.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€The€execution€of€a€joint€will€or€mutual€wills€doesÏnot€create€a€presumption€of€a€contract€to€make€a€will,Ïor€to€refrain€from€revoking€a€will.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€32„3„107€(1984).Ì þÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€2ÔÔ€2ôÔòòCooper€v.€Flemingóó,€114€Tenn.€40,€84€S.W.€801,€802€(1904).€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÒ ° ÒÒ À ÒØ ØÓ&€11XÐd&ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€2ԛрÑÑ7€UFXXdìdÈ7ÑÖ€3ÖÑ  ÑœÞ ÞÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMarch€30,€1998Ì›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÙ€€ÙœßR€685A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›à@ àAT€œKNOXVILLE›€ÌÌÌÌWILLIAM€A.€WINNINGHAM,à àà à€€(ÌEXECUTOR€OF€THE€ESTATE€OFà à€€(ÌALSTON€WINNINGHAM,à àà àà à€€(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€(€€Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à à€€(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€(€€Cumberland€County€ProbateÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€(€€Hon.€Gary€W.€Dodson,€Judge€Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€œ(€€Sitting€by€Interchange›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€(€œ›à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€œ(€€No.€03S01„9704„PB„00042›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€(ÌTAMMY€K.€WINNINGHAM,à àà à€€(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€(Ìà àDefendant„Appellee.à àà à€€(ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff„Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòFor€Defendant„Appelleeóó:ÌÌHarry€D.€Sabineà àà àà àà àJohn€R.€OfficerÌSabine€&€Douglas,€P.C.à àà àà àLivingstonÌCrossvilleÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ̛̜̜TRIAL›€COURT€œREVERSED;€CASE›€œÌDISMISSED€AND€REMANDED€TOÌTRIAL€COURT.à àà à›à àà àœà àà à›à àœà àREID,›€œSp.€J.ÌÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓ›à àThis€is€a€suit€to€enforce€the€provision€in€a€will€whichÏforbade€contest€upon€penalty€of€forfeiture.€€The€trial€courtÏdeclared€a€forfeiture;€the€Court€of€Appeals€remanded€the€case€forÏfurther€proof.€€This€Court€finds€that€the€trial€court€erred€andÏholds€that€the€circumstances€found€by€the€trial€court€do€not€justifyÏa€forfeiture€under€Tennessee€law.€€The€suit€is€accordinglyÏÑ7€O>XXdÈXXdì7Ñdismissed.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌÌà àIn€1981,€the€testator,€Alston€Winningham,€and€his€wife,ÏReba€Winningham,€executed€mutual€reciprocal€wills,€in€which€theyÏnamed€their€two€children,€the€œplaintiff,›€William€A.€Winningham€andÏthe€defendant,€Tammy€K.€Winningham,€as€substantially€equalÏbeneficiaries€under€the€survivorððs€will.€€Reba€Winningham€died€inÏ1986€and€her€will€was€probated.€€Thereafter,€Alston€WinninghamÏexecuted€a€new€will,€in€which€the€portion€of€the€estate€devised€toÏTammy€K.€Winningham€was€reduced€substantially€to€the€benefit€ofÏWilliam€A.€Winningham€and€his€daughter.€€This€will€was€executed€onÏMarch12,€1992,€and€the€testator,€who€was€terminally€ill€at€theÍtime,€died€four€months€later.€€The€will€contains€the€followingÏprovision:ÌÌÓÓÔ€0Ôà8 àÔ€2ÔIf€any€beneficiary€hereunder€shall€contest€theÏprobate€or€validity€of€this€will€or€anyÏprovision€thereof,€or€shall€institute€or€join€inÏany€proceeding€to€contest€the€validity€of€thisÏwill€or€to€prevent€any€provision€thereof€fromÏbeing€carried€out€in€accordance€with€its€termÏ(regardless€of€whether€such€proceedings€areÏinstituted€in€good€faith€and€with€probableÏcause),€then€all€benefits€provided€for€suchÏbeneficiary€are€revoked€and€such€benefits€shallÏpass€to€the€residuary€beneficiaries€of€this€willÏ....€€Each€benefit€conferred€herein€is€madeÏon€the€condition€precedent€that€the€beneficiaryÏshall€accept€and€agree€to€all€of€the€provisionsÏof€this€will€and€the€provisions€of€this€ArticleÏare€an€essential€part€of€each€and€every€benefit.ÓÓÌÌà àThe€case€before€the€Court€is€the€third€suit€filed€inÏconnection€with€the€testatorððs€estate.€€The€first€suit€was€filed€byÏWilliam€A.€Cunningham,€as€executor.€€In€that€suit,€he€sought€the€Ïcorrection€of€several€errors€in€the€will€regarding€theÏidentification€of€the€testatorððs€property.€€As€an€example€of€theÏerrors€in€the€will€corrected€in€that€case,€one€devised€tract€of€landÏwas€identified€as€being€the€property€conveyed€by€deed€recorded€inÏDeed€Book€80,€page€136€and€Deed€Book€71,€page€459,€while€the€tractÏintended€was€that€described€in€Deed€Book€307,€page€398.€€€€ÌÌà àTammy€K.€Winningham€discussed€with€an€attorney€theÍadvisability€of€filing€a€suit€to€contest€the€will.€€The€attorneyÏadvised€that,€in€his€opinion,€there€were€no€grounds€on€which€theÏwill€could€be€successfully€contested.€€However,€the€attorney€toldÏMs.Winningham€that€her€fatherððs€1981€will€could€not€be€revokedÏafter€her€motherððs€death.€€Relying€upon€this€advice,€Ms.WinninghamÏauthorized€the€attorney€to€file€suit€to€have€the€1981€will€declaredÏto€be€the€testatorððs€last€will€and€testament.€€The€complaintÏcharged,€ð ðDecedent€did€not€have€the€right€to€dispose€of€all€of€theÏabove€property,€in€that€he€had€made€a€joint€and€mutual€will€with€hisÏwife,€Reba€Winningham,€on€February13,€1981.ðð€€The€suit€did€notÏallege€that€the€testator€was€incompetent€to€make€a€will€in€1992,€orÏthat€he€was€unduly€influenced€in€making€the€will,€or€that€the€willÏwas€not€properly€executed.ÌÌà àA€short€time€after€the€suit€was€filed,€Ms.WinninghamððsÏattorney€advised€her€that€he€had€been€mistaken€regarding€the€law,Ïand€he€recommended€that€the€suit€be€dismissed€immediately.€€TheÏattorneyððs€original€advice€to€file€the€suit€was€based€upon€hisÏunderstanding€of€the€state€of€the€law€prior€to€the€enactment€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€32„3„107× ƒ9 ××  ×€in€1978,€some€15€years€earlier.€€Prior€toÍthe€enactment€of€that€statute,€the€execution€of€reciprocal€wills€byÏa€husband€and€wife€raised€the€presumption€that€the€wills€had€beenÏexecuted€pursuant€to€an€agreement.€€ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€ð ðWhere€.€.€.€the€wills€are€identical€inÏlanguage,€witnessed€by€the€same€persons,€at€theÏsame€time€and€place,€and€the€contracting€partiesÏare€husband€and€wife,€it€is€will€nigh€conclusiveÏthat€such€wills€were€executed€in€accordance€withÏtheir€mutual€contract€to€dispose€of€theirÏproperty€in€this€manner.ððÌÌÌÌÓÓòòIn€Re€Estate€of€Brightóó,€482€S.W.2d€555,€556€(Tenn.€1972),€òòcert.óóÏòòdeniedóó,€409€U.S.€915€(1972)€(quoting€òòChurch€of€Christ€Home€for€Aged,ÏInc.€v.€Nashville€Trust€Co.óó,€184€Tenn.€629,€202€S.W.2d€178€(1947)).€ÏThe€record€shows€that€Ms.Winninghamððs€counsel,€prior€to€advisingÏher€to€file€the€suit,€made€no€investigation€regarding€the€status€ofÏthe€law€on€that€point€and€became€aware€of€the€statute€whileÍdiscussing€another€case€with€an€attorney.€€The€suit€was€dismissedÏapproximately€three€weeks€after€it€was€filed.ÌÌà àThe€instant€suit,€an€action€to€enforce€the€forfeitureÏprovision€in€the€will,€was€also€filed€by€William€A.€Winningham.€€InÏthis€case,€he€asserts€his€interest€as€a€residuary€beneficiary€underÏthe€will.€€The€trial€court€found€the€suit€was€filed€in€good€faithÏbut€without€probable€cause€and€declared€that€the€forfeitureÏprovision€should€be€enforced.€€The€Court€of€Appeals,€in€a€dividedÏopinion,€held€that€the€good€faith€reliance€upon€the€advice€ofÏcounsel€may€establish€probable€cause€for€initiating€a€will€contestÏprovided€the€advice€follows€full€and€fair€disclosure€of€all€materialÏfacts.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€remanded€the€case€for€proof€regardingÏthe€sufficiency€of€the€disclosure.€€The€dissenting€judge€wouldÏenforce€the€clearly€stated€intent€of€the€testator€and€affirm€theÏtrial€courtððs€declaration€of€a€forfeiture.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌÌà àThe€general€issue€presented€is€the€extent€to€which€aÏforfeiture€provision€conditioned€upon€a€contest€of€the€will€or€anyÏprovision€therein€is€enforceable.€€The€prohibition€in€this€case€goesÏbeyond€a€contest€of€the€due€execution€of€the€will€and€includes€anyÍcontest€of€the€validity€or€implementation€of€any€provision€in€theÏwill.€€ð ðEach€benefit€conferred€herein€is€made€on€the€conditionÏprecedent€that€the€beneficiary€shall€accept€and€agree€to€all€of€theÏprovisions€of€this€will€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€prohibition€extends€toÏproceedings€ð ðinstituted€in€good€faith€and€with€probable€cause.ðð€€TheÏforfeiture€provision€of€the€will€is€unambiguous€and€unequivocal.€ÏThe€intent€expressed€in€the€forfeiture€provision€is€clear.€€UnderÏthe€law,€that€intent€is€of€paramount€importance.€€ð ðThe€cardinal€ruleÏfor€interpreting€and€construing€a€last€will€and€testament€is€theÏascertainment€of€the€intent€of€the€testator.€€That€intent,€whenÏknown,€will€be€given€effect€unless€prohibited€by€some€rule€of€law€orÏpublic€policy.ðð€€òòIn€Re€Walkeróó,€849€S.W.2d€766,€768€(Tenn.€1993);ÏòòCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/Central€Southóó,€816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€So,€the€clear€intent€of€the€testator€will€govern€unless€itÏis€ð ðprohibited€by€some€rule€of€law€or€public€policy.ðð€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€points€to€other€jurisdictions€which€holdÏthat€forfeiture€clauses€shall€be€enforced€without€exception€andÏrepresented€in€oral€argument€that€the€majority€of€jurisdictionsÏfollow€that€rule.€€òòSeeóó€òòCommerce€Trust€Co.€V.€Weedóó,€318€S.W.2d€289,Ï301„302€(Mo.€1958);€òòIn€re€Howardððs€Estateóó,€155€P.2d€841,€842€(Cal.ÏDist.€Ct.€App.€1945).€€Though€perhaps€historically€correct,€it€isÏquestionable€whether€the€majority€of€jurisdictions€still€enforceÍforfeitures€where€the€contest€is€brought€in€good€faith€and€withÏprobable€cause.€€One€Court€has€stated€that€ð ða€majority€ofÏjurisdictions€have€declined€to€enforce€òòinóó€òòterroremóó€clauses€whereÏchallenges€to€testamentary€instruments€are€brought€in€good€faith€andÏwith€probable€cause.ðð€€òòSee€Haynes€v.€First€Natððl€State€Bk€of€N.J.óó,Ï432€A.2d€890,€903„904€(N.J.€1981)€(and€cases€cited€therein).€€ThatÏCourt€notes€that€New€Jersey,€along€with€fourteen€other€states,€œhas›Ïadopted€the€Uniform€Probate€Code€ðð€3„905,€8II€U.L.A.€œ272Ì(1998)›€which€provides,€ð ðA€provision€in€a€will€purporting€to€penalizeÏany€interested€person€for€contesting€the€will€or€instituting€otherÏproceedings€relating€to€the€estate€is€unenforceable€if€probableÏcause€exists€for€instituting€proceedings.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€RestatementÏ(Second)€of€Property,€Donative€Transfers€ðð9.1€(1983)€(forfeitureÏclause€valid€ð ðunless€there€was€probable€cause€for€making€the€contestÏor€attackðð);€œAnnotation,›€òòValidity€and€Enforceability€of€Provision€ofÏWill€or€Trust€Instrument€for€Forfeiture€or€Reduction€of€Share€ofÏContesting€œBeneficiaryóó,›€23€A.L.R.4th€369,€376„81€(1983).€€TheÏconclusion€is,€that€the€jurisdictions€are€splitÔ€0Ô€Ô€2Ôas€to€theÏenforceability€of€a€forfeiture€clause€in€the€face€of€probable€causeÏfor€contesting€the€will,€but€there€is€strong€support€for€anÏexception€for€good€faith€and€probable€cause.€€òòSeeóó€Claudia€G.ÏCatalano,€Annotation,€òòWhat€Constitutes€Contest€or€Attempt€to€DefeatÏWill€Within€Provision€Thereof€Forfeiting€Share€of€ContestingÍBeneficiaryóó,€3€A.L.R.€5th,€590€(1992).ÌÌà àThis€Court€has€recognized€that€a€forfeiture€provision€in€aÏwill€is€not€void€as€against€public€policy.€€òòTate€v.€Campóó,€147€Tenn.Ï137,€149,€245€S.W.€839,€842€(1922);€òòThompson€v.€Gautóó,€82€Tenn.€310,Ï314€(1884).€€However,€it€has€been€the€rule€since€òòTate€v.€Campóó,€thatÏa€forfeiture€provision€will€not€be€enforced€where€a€contest€isÏpursued€ð ðin€good€faith€and€upon€probable€cause.ðð€€After€consideringÏdecisions€from€other€jurisdictions,€the€Court€in€òòTate€v.€CampóóÏapproved€the€following€from€òòSouth€Norwalk€Trust€Co.€v.€St.€Johnóó,€92ÏConn.€168,€101€A.€961,€963€(1917),€ð ðððWhere€the€contest€has€not€beenÏmade€in€good€faith,€and€upon€probable€cause€and€reasonableÏjustification,€the€forfeiture€should€be€given€full€operative€effect.€ÏWhere€the€contrary€appears,€the€legatee€ought€not€to€forfeit€hisÏlegacy.ðððð€€òòTate€v.€Campóó,€147€Tenn.€at€155„56,€245€S.W.€at€844.€€InÏòòTate€v.€Campóó,€the€will€provided:ÌÌÓÓÔ€0Ô€€à8 àÔ€2Ô[I]f€any€person€or€persons€to€whom€I€have€hereinÏmade€bequests€shallÔ€0Ô€Ô€2Ôenter€any€contest€of€thisÏwill,€upon€any€ground€whatsoever,€such€person€orÏpersons€shall€forfeit€and€lose€the€provisionÏmade€for€them,€and€what€they€would€have€takenÏshall€fall€back€to€my€estate€and€pass€under€theÏresiduary€clause€of€this€will.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€140,€245€S.W.€at€839.€€The€will€in€that€case€was€contested€byÍthe€sole€surviving€son€of€the€testator€on€several€grounds,€includingÏundue€influence€by€the€testatorððs€niece€and€great€nephew,€who€hadÏlived€with€the€testator€for€the€seven€years€prior€to€his€death€andÏwho€were€the€major€beneficiaries€under€the€later€will.€€The€suitÏalso€charged€that€the€testator€was€not€mentally€competent€at€theÏtime€the€will€was€executed,€and,€further,€that€in€consideration€ofÏhis€working€for€his€fatherððs€company€for€the€last€20€years€for€aÏnominal€salary,€he€was€ð ðby€agreement€to€heir€...€the€whole€of€hisÏ[fatherððs]€property.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€144,€245€S.W.€at€841.€€In€a€willÏexecuted€two€years€earlier,€the€testator€had€given€all€of€hisÏsubstantial€estate€to€his€son€except€total€bequests€of€$25,000€toÏthe€niece€and€great€nephew€and€$5,000€to€charity.€€€While€the€caseÏwas€pending,€the€parties€reached€a€settlement€in€which€a€largeÏportion€of€the€estate€was€transferred€from€the€niece€and€greatÏnephew€to€the€son.€€The€contest€proceeding€was€dismissed.€€TheÏexecutor€then€filed€the€petition€to€determine€if€the€son€hadÏforfeited€his€interest€under€the€will.€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€in€òòTate€v.€Campóó€rejected€the€line€of€casesÏsupporting€the€forfeiture€rule€without€admitting€any€exceptions,Ïfinding€that€the€reasoning€in€cases€that€make€an€exceptionÏð ðannounces€a€more€equitable€and€just€rule,€and€one€that€meets€withÏour€approval.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€149,€245€S.W.€at€842.ÌÌÓÓà8 àœð ðThe›€better€rule,€however,€seems€to€us€to€beÏthat€the€penalty€of€forfeiture€of€the€gift€orÏdevise€ought€not€to€be€imposed€when€it€clearlyÏappears€that€the€contest€to€have€the€will€setÏaside€was€justified€under€the€circumstances,€andÏwas€not€a€mere€vexatious€act€of€a€disappointedÏchild€or€next€of€kin.€€A€different€rule€„€anÏunbending€one€„€that€in€no€case€shall€anÏunsuccessful€contestant€of€a€will€escape€theÏpenalty€of€forfeiture€of€the€interest€given€him,Ïwould€sometimes€not€only€work€manifestÏinjustice,€but€accomplish€results€that€noÏrational€testator€would€ever€œcontemplate.ðð›ÌÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€151„52,€245€S.W.€at€843€(quoting€òòIn€re€Friendóó,€209€Pa.€442,Ï58€A.€853,€854€(1904)).€€The€Court€supported€its€decision€with€theÏfollowing:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€ð ðThe€exception€that€a€contest€for€whichÏthere€is€a€reasonable€ground€will€not€work€aÏforfeiture,€stands€upon€better€ground.€€It€isÏquite€likely€true€that€the€authorities€ofÏgreater€number€refuse€to€accept€this€exception,Ïbut€we€think€it€has€behind€it€the€better€reason.€ÏIt€rests€upon€a€sound€public€policy.€€The€lawÏprescribes€who€may€make€a€will€and€how€it€shallÏbe€made;€that€it€must€be€executed€in€a€namedÏmode,€by€a€person€having€testamentary€capacityÏand€acting€freely,€and€not€under€undueÏinfluence.€...€€Courts€cannot€know€whether€aÏwill,€good€on€its€face,€was€made€in€conformityÏto€statutory€requirements,€whether€the€testatorÏwas€of€sound€mind,€and€whether€the€will€was€theÏproduct€of€undue€influence,€unless€these€mattersÏare€presented€in€court€....ððÌÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€154„55,€245€S.W.€at€844€(quoting€òòSouth€Norwalk€Trust€Co.€v.ÏSt.€Johnóó,€101€A.€at€963.ÌÌà àIn€this€state,€a€testator€cannot€eliminate€the€good€faithÏand€reasonable€justification€exception€even€by€specific€language.€ÏAs€stated€in€òòTate€v.€Campóó,€ð ðððCourts€exist€to€ascertain€the€truth€andÏto€apply€the€law€to€it€in€any€given€situation;€and€a€right€ofÏdevolution€which€enables€a€testator€to€shut€the€door€of€truth€andÏprevent€the€observance€of€the€law,€is€a€mistaken€public€policy.ðððð€ÏòòIdóó.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌÌà àIn€the€case€before€the€Court,€the€record€supports€theÏtrial€courtððs€finding€that€the€suit€was€filed€by€Ms.€Winningham€inÏgood€faith.€€The€previous€will€had€divided€the€property€equallyÏbetween€the€plaintiff€and€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€testifiedÏthat€she€believed€that€her€father€lacked€mental€capacity€at€the€timeÏhe€wrote€the€later€will.€€The€1992€will,€which€decreases€her€shareÏin€the€estate,€was€written€just€months€before€the€testatorððs€deathÏfrom€cancer€and€while€he€was€receiving€debilitating€medicalÏtreatment.€€Furthermore,€there€were€significant€errors€in€the€willÏregarding€the€property€owned€by€the€testator.€€Additionally,€thereÍwas€the€legal€theory,€though€outdated,€for€invalidating€theÏeffectiveness€of€the€1992€will.€€€As€soon€as€the€attorney€advisedÏthe€defendant€of€his€error,€the€petition€was€withdrawn.€€TheÏplaintiff€presented€no€evidence€of€bad€faith.€€Filing€the€suit€wasÏnot€ð ða€mere€vexatious€actðð€but€was€based€on€honest€conviction.€€ÌÌà àThe€remaining€issue€is€whether€there€was€probable€cause€orÏreasonable€justification€to€file€the€suit.€€The€trial€court€heldÏthat€ð ða€lawsuit€based€on€a€mistake€of€law€is€a€lawsuit€withoutÏprobable€causeðð€and€the€ð ðclient€is€bound€by€his€agent,ðð€theÏattorney.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€did€not€accept€that€conclusion.€€TheÏdefendant€insists€that€reliance€upon€her€lawyerððs€advice€satisfiesÏthe€second€requirement€for€exemption€from€forfeiture.€€The€plaintiffÏinsists€the€lawyerððs€erroneous€advice€is€not€sufficient€to€justifyÏthe€contest.€€ÌÌà àAs€indicated€above,€the€Court€in€òòTate€v.€Campóó,€found€thatÏa€contest€will€not€work€a€forfeiture€where€there€is,€in€addition€toÏgood€faith,€probable€cause€and€reasonable€grounds€for€institutingÏthe€suit.€€In€òòWoolard€v.€Ferrellóó,€169€S.W.2d€134€(Tenn.€App.€1942),Ïthe€Court€of€Appeals€applied€reasoning€from€malicious€prosecutionÏlaw€to€analyze€the€issue€of€probable€cause€to€contest€a€will€with€aÏforfeiture€clause.€€That€court€quoted€from€a€treatise€on€maliciousÍprosecution,€stating,ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à[T]he€law€as€to€reasonable€or€probableÏcause€is€defined€to€be€such€a€state€of€facts€inÏthe€mind€of€the€prosecutor€as€would€lead€aÏperson€of€ordinary€caution€and€prudence€toÏbelieve,€or€entertain€an€honest€or€strongÏsuspicion,€that€the€person€is€guilty.€€It€doesÏnot€depend€on€the€actual€state€of€the€case€inÏpoint€of€fact,€but€upon€the€honest€andÏreasonable€belief€of€the€party€commencing€theÏprosecution.€€...€The€question€of€probableÏcause€applies€to€the€nature€of€the€suit,€and€theÏpoint€of€inquiry€is€whether€the€defendant€hadÏprobable€cause€to€maintain€the€particular€suitÏupon€the€existing€facts€known€to€him.ÌÌÓÓÌòòIdóó.€at€137.€€More€recently,€this€Court€has€defined€the€existence€ofÏprobable€cause€in€the€context€of€a€malicious€prosecution€suit€asÏbeing€independent€of€the€subjective€mental€state€of€the€prosecutor,Ïrequiring€ð ðonly€the€existence€of€such€facts€and€circumstancesÏsufficient€to€excite€in€a€reasonable€mind€the€belief€that€theÏaccused€is€guilty€of€the€crime€charged.ðð€€òòRoberts€v.€Federal€ExpressÏCorp.óó,€842€S.W.2d€246,€248€(Tenn.€1992).€€ÌÌà àEven€though€this€requirement€for€exemption€from€forfeitureÏis€usually€discussed€in€the€language€of€ð ðprobable€causeðð€withÏreliance€on€malicious€prosecution€decisions,€ð ðreasonable€groundðð€orÏð ðreasonable€justificationðð€is€œthe›€more€appropriate€characterizationÏof€the€standard€to€be€applied.€€While€the€advice€of€counsel€mayÍconstitute€probable€cause€in€cases€of€malicious€prosecution,× ƒ: ××  ×€it€willÏnot€defeat€a€forfeiture€unless€the€suit€to€contest€the€will€wasÏreasonably€justified€under€all€of€the€circumstances.€€As€stated€œinÏòòIn›€Re€Friendððs€Estateóó,€209€Pa.€442,€58€A.€853,€857€(1903),€ð ð.€.€.€ifÏthe€mere€advice€of€counsel€can€be€regarded€as€probable€cause€forÏinstituting€proceedings€to€contest€a€will,€there€would€be€noneÏwithout€cause,€and€in€every€instance€such€a€[forfeiture]€clause€asÏthe€testatrix€inserted€in€hers€would€be€nugatory.ðð€€The€essentialÏpoint€is€that€the€contestant€must€show€that€under€all€theÏcircumstances€the€contest€was€reasonably€justified.ÌÌà àAlthough€there€are€significant€circumstances€to€theÏcontrary,€the€Court€finds€that,€on€balance,€there€was€reasonableÏjustification€for€Ms.€Winninghamððs€decision€to€file€the€suit,€theÏpurpose€of€which€was€to€establish€the€testatorððs€1981€will€as€hisÏlast€will€and€testament.€€Many€of€the€facts€which€show€thatÏMs.Winningham€acted€in€good€faith€also€demonstrate€that€there€wasÏreasonable€justification€for€the€action€taken.€€Ms.€Winningham€feltÏthat€she€was€entitled€to€an€inheritance€equal€to€that€of€her€brotherÏas€provided€in€her€parentsðð€reciprocal€wills€written€while€bothÏparents€were€living.€€She€also€could€reasonably€believe,€as€sheÏtestified,€that€her€fatherððs€faculties€had€become€impaired€byÍdisease€and€treatment€when€the€1992€will€was€executed.€ÏNevertheless,€when€advised€there€was€no€basis€on€which€the€1992€willÏcould€be€successfully€contested,€she€discontinued€any€plans€orÏefforts€to€attack€the€later€will.€€ÌÌà àThe€initiative€to€enforce€the€provisions€of€her€fatherððsÏ1981€will€with€legal€proceedings€was€taken€by€her€counsel,€whoseÏlegal€knowledge€she€apparently€had€no€reason€to€question.€€Based€onÏcounselððs€statement,€the€law€would€give€her€what€she€thought€was€herÏjust€and€fair€due.€€Had€the€law€been€in€1992€what€it€was€prior€toÏ1978,€there€would€have€been€no€reason€not€to€file€suit.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€justice€does€not€require€that€Ms.€Winningham€bearÏfull€responsibility€for€her€lawyerððs€performance.ÌÌà àAlso€relevant€to€this€issue€is€the€nature€of€the€suit€andÏits€duration.€€The€nature€of€the€suit€filed€is€not€free€fromÏambiguity.€€The€complaint€is€styled€ð ðComplaint€to€Attest€Willðð€andÏstates€that€it€is€filed€ð ðpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€32„4„101€toÏcontest€that€certain€will€of€Alston€Winningham,€dated€March12,Ï1992.ðð€€The€complaint€prays€that€ð ðthe€matter€be€certified€to€theÏcircuit€court€for€a€trial€on€the€issue€of€òòdevisavitóó€òòvelóó€òònonóó.ðð€ÏHowever,€allegations€in€the€complaint€suggest€that€it€is€not€a€willÏcontest€but€a€suit€for€specific€performance€of€a€contract€betweenÍMr.€and€Mrs.€Winningham€to€make€mutual€wills.€€The€complaint€states,Ïð ðDecedent€did€not€have€the€right€to€dispose€of€all€of€the€aboveÏproperty,€in€that€he€had€made€a€joint€and€mutual€will€with€his€wife,ÏReba€Winningham,€on€February€13,€1981.ðð€€Of€course,€a€suit€forÏspecific€performance€is€not€a€will€contest€and€would€be€filed€inÏchancery€court.€€òòChurch€of€Christ€Home€for€Aged€v.€Nashville€TrustÏCo.óó,€184€Tenn.€629,€202€S.W.2d€178€(l947).€€Though€the€point€is€notÏmade€on€behalf€of€Ms.€Winningham,€there€is€authority€that€a€suit€toÏenforce€a€contract€to€make€mutual€wills€is€not€a€contest€that€willÏprecipitate€a€forfeiture.€€òòSeeóó€3€A.L.R.€5th€at€702.€€There€also€isÏauthority,€though€not€asserted,€that€because€the€complaint€wasÏdismissed€without€any€further€proceedings,€it€did€not€constitute€aÏcontest.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€òòDrennen€v.€Heardóó,€198€F.€414,€429„30€(N.D.€Ga.),Ïòòaffððdóó,€211€F.€335€(5th€Cir.€1914);€òòMatter€of€Estate€of€Stiehleróó,€506ÏN.Y.S.€2d€845,€847„48€(Sur.€Ct.€1986);€òòIn€Re€Croninððs€Willóó,€257ÏN.Y.S.€496,€509€(Sur.€Ct.),€òòaffððdóó,€261€N.Y.S.€936€(App.€Div.€1932);ÏòòAyers€v.€Ayersóó,€279€S.W.€647,€649€(Ky.€Ct.€App.€1926);€3€A.L.R.€5thÏat€629„30.€€It€also€could€be€argued€that€the€plaintiff,€by€filingÏsuit€to€correct€errors€in€the€will,€instituted€a€proceeding,€ð ðtoÏprevent€any€provision€thereof€from€being€carried€out€in€accordanceÏwith€its€termðð€and,€thereby,€forfeited€his€interest€in€the€estateÏalso,€if€the€forfeiture€provision€should€be€given€the€technicalÏconstruction€insisted€upon€by€the€plaintiff.€€In€any€event,€the€suitÍcame€to€naught.€€It€was€dismissed€without€expense€or€prejudice€toÏthe€administration€of€the€estate€or€any€beneficiary.€€ÌÌà àThe€suit,€accordingly,€is€dismissed.€€This€case€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€the€enforcement€of€the€judgment€andÏthe€assessment€of€costs.ÌÌà àCosts€are€taxed€to€William€A.€Winningham.ÌÓÓà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àœLyle€Reid,›€œSpecial€Justice›ÌÌConcur:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.,€Drowota,€Birch,Ì€€and€Holder,€JJ.