Full text
William A. Winningham of the Estate of Alston Winningham v. Tammy K. Winningham - Concurring
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS
FILED October 2, 1996
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk W LLI AM A. W NNI NGHAM Exe c ut or ) I I , CUM BERLAND PROBATE o f t he Es t a t e o f Al s t on ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9604- PB- 0015 2 W n n i n g ha m, i ) ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l e e ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. GARY W DODSON . ) J UDGE, BY I NTERCHANGE ) ) ) ) ) TAM Y K. W NNI NGHAM M I , ) REVERSED AND REMANDED ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )
J OHN R. OFFI CER, Li vi ngs t o n, f or Appe l l a nt . HARRY D. SABI NE, Sa bi ne & Dougl a s , P. C. , Cr os s vi l l e , f or Appe l l e e .
O P I N I O N
M M r a y, J . c ur
W a r e c a l l e d upon i n t hi s a ppe a l t o de t e r mi ne whe t he r r e l y i n g e
o n t h e a dvi c e of a n a t t or ne y i n f i l i ng a n unf ounde d wi l l c ont e s t *2 c o n s t i t u t e s pr oba bl e c a us e s uf f i c i e nt t o a voi d t he e nf or c e me nt o f a f o r f e i t ur e c l a us e i n t he wi l l . For t he r e a s ons s e t f or t h be l ow, we f i n d t ha t s uc h r e l i a nc e doe s c ons t i t ut e pr oba bl e c a us e , a nd r e v e r s e t he j udgme nt of t h e t r i a l c our t .
Th e a ppe l l a nt , Ta mmy W nni ngha m, i wa s t he da ught e r of Al s t o n
a nd Re b a W nni ngha m. i Al s t o n a nd Re ba W nni ngha m e xe c ut e d i de nt i c a l i
wi l l s o n Fe br ua r y 13, 1981. Re ba W nni ngha m di e d on Fe br ua r y 2 6 , i
1 9 8 6 , a nd he r wi l l wa s pr oba t e d. I n 1992, Al s t on W nni ngha m, wh o i
a t t h e t i me wa s s uf f e r i ng f r om c a nc e r , e xe c ut e d a ne w wi l l . Th a t wi l l c o n t a i ne d a f or f e i t ur e c l a us e a ppl yi ng t o a ny be ne f i c i a r y wh o
i ni t i a t e d a c ont e s t of t he wi l l . Al s t on W nni ngha m di e d l a t e r t ha t i
ye a r . Ap p a r e n t l y, Ta mmy W nni ngha m ha d c onc e r n a bout t he c omp e - i
t e nc y o f he r f a t he r due t o hi s me di c a l c ondi t i on a t t he t i me h e e xe c ut e d t he 1992 wi l l . She c ont a c t e d Li vi ngs t on a t t or ne y J o h n He a t h , who mi s t a ke nl y t ol d he r t ha t mut ua l wi l l s ( s uc h a s t he wi l l s
e xe c ut e d by Al s t on a nd Re ba W nni ngha m i n i 1981) c oul d not be
r e voke d af t er t he de a t h of t he ot he r pa r t y. M. r He a t h wa s
a pp a r e nt l y una wa r e of t he Tr a ut ma nn Ac t , c odi f i e d a t T. C. A. § 32- 3 -1 0 7 , wh i c h a bol i s he d t he pr e s umpt i on of c ont r a c t ua l i nt e nt i n t h e e x e c u t i on of j oi nt a nd mut ua l wi l l s , a nd pr ovi de s t ha t a c ont r a c t t o ma k e a wi l l c a n be e s t a bl i s he d onl y by a s t a t e me nt of t he c on t r a c t t e r ms i n t he wi l l , a n e xpr e s s r e f e r e nc e i n t he wi l l t o t he e xi s t e nc e o f a c ont r a c t ( t he t e r ms of whi c h a r e pr ove n by e xt r i n s i c e vi d e nc e ) , or a s e pa r a t e wr i t i ng s i gne d by t he de c e de nt e vi de nc i n g
t he c o n t r a c t . I n r e l i a nc e on M . He a t h’ s a dvi c e , Ta mmy W nni ng h a m r i
f i l e d s ui t a ga i ns t t he e xe c ut or of Al s t on W nni ngha m’ s i es t at e,
W l l i a m W nni ngha m, a ppe l l e e i n t hi s c a s e . i i Thr e e we e ks a f t e r t h e
f i l i n g of t ha t s ui t , M. r He a t h r e a l i z e d h i s e r r or , a nd t he wi l l
c o n t e s t a c t i on wa s i mme di a t e l y a nd vol unt a r i l y di s mi s s e d.
W l l i a m W nni ngha m t he n f i l e d s ui t t o i nvoke t he f or f e i t u r e i i
p r o v i s i on a s t o a ny be que s t or de vi s e t o Ta mmy W nni ngha m. i Th e
Ho n o r a b l e Ga r y Dods on, s i t t i ng by i n t e r c ha nge i n t he Pr oba t e a n d Fa mi l y Cour t of Cumbe r l a n d Count y, f ound t ha t t he f i l i ng of t h e wi l l c o n t e s t vi ol a t e d t he f or f e i t ur e c l a us e a nd t ha t , c ons e que nt l y , t h e p r o vi s i on s houl d be e n f or c e d. Thi s a ppe a l f ol l owe d.
Al s t on W l l i ngha m' s wi l l pr ovi de d i n pa r t a s f ol l ows : i
I f a ny be ne f i c i a r y s ha l l c ont e s t t he pr oba t e or v a l i di t y of t hi s wi l l or a ny pr ovi s i on t he r e of , or s ha l l i ns t i t ut e or j oi n i n a ny pr oc e e di ng t o c ont e s t t he v a l i di t y of t hi s wi l l or t o pr e ve nt a ny pr ovi s i on t he r e of f r om be i ng c a r r i e d ou t i n a c c or da nc e wi t h i t s t e r m ( r e ga r dl e s s of whe t he r s uc h pr oc e e di ngs a r e i ns t i t ut e d i n g o od f a i t h a nd wi t h pr oba bl e c a us e 1 ) , t h e n a l l be ne f i t s p r ovi de d f or s uc h b e ne f i c i a r y a r e r e voke d a nd s uc h b e ne f i t s s ha l l pa s s t o t he r e s i dua r y be ne f i c i a r i e s of t hi s wi l l . . . .
1 No i s s u e i s ma d e c o n c e r n i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h i s p r o v i s i o n . W , t he r e f or e , e d e c l i n e t o c o mme n t t h e r e o n .
I n Te nne s s e e , a f or f e i t ur e c l a us e i s ge ne r a l l y v a l i d. Se e
Ta t e v . Ca mp , 147 Te nn. 137, 245 S. W 839 ( 1922) . . I n W a r d v. ool
Fe r r e l l , 169 S. W 2d 134 t he c our t c i t i ng Ta t e , s upr a , not e d: .
The l a w i n Te nne s s e e gove r ni ng t he e f f e c t of a wi l l c o nt e s t on t he ope r a t i on of a f or f e i t ur e c l a us e i n a wi l l i s f ul l y di s c u s s e d a nd i s s e t t l e d i n a n opi ni on by M Ki nne y, J udge , . . . whe r e i t i s he l d t ha t a f or f e i t ur e c p r ovi s i i on i n a wi l l i s not voi d a s a ga i ns t pub l i c p o l i c y, a nd t ha t l e ga t e e wi l l not l os e hi s i nt e r e s t unde r a f o r f e i t ur e p r ovi s i on of a wi l l i f t he c ont e s t wa s p r os e c ut e d i n good f a i t h a nd upon pr oba bl e c a us e . . . . .
W l l a r d , pa ge 136. o
I t i s c l e a r , t h e r e f or e , t h a t a gi f t wi l l not be f or f e i t e d i f t he c o n t e s t i s ma de i n good f a i t h a nd on pr oba bl e c a us e . The Tr i a l Co u r t f ound t ha t s i nc e At t or ne y He a t h a dvi s e d hi s c l i e nt ba s e d o n a mi s t a k e of l a w, t he r e wa s no ba d f a i t h on t h e p a r t of Ta mmy
W n n i n g ha m. i Howe ve r , t he Cour t f ound t ha t s i nc e t he 1981 wi l l s
c o u l d n ot be l e ga l l y c ons t r ue d t o be mut ua l wi l l s , t h e wi l l c ont e s t wa s wi t hout pr oba bl e c a us e , e ve n t hough s he a c t e d on t he mi s t a k e n
a dv i c e of c ouns e l . W r e s pe c t f ul l y di s a gr e e . e
The De f e nda nt a r gue s t ha t pr oba bl e c a us e i s e s t a bl i s he d whe r e p r o s e c u t i on of an a c t i on is i n s t i t ut e d on a dvi c e of c ouns e l .
De f e nd a nt ci t es t he case of Sul l i va n v. Young, 678 S. W 2d 9 0 6 .
( Te n n . App. 1984) a s s t a n d i ng f or t he pr opos i t i on t ha t pr oba b l e c a us e i s e s t a bl i s he d whe r e i ns t i ga t i on of a n a c t i on i s done wi t h t he a d v i c e of c ouns e l . Al t hough Sul l i va n i nvol ve s a n a c t i on f o r *5 ma l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on, we t hi nk t he a na l ogy i s a ppr opr i a t e . In
W o l a r d v. o Fe r r e l l , s upr a , t hi s c our t a ppl i e d t he de f i ni t i on o f
pr oba bl e c a us e f r om a ma l i c i ous p r os e c ut i on case to a cas e i n t e r p r e t i ng a f or f e i t ur e pr ovi s i on. The Cour t s a i d:
[ T] he l a w a s t o r e a s ona bl e or p r oba bl e c a us e i s d e f i ne d t o be s uc h a s t a t e of f a c t s i n t he mi nd of t he p r os e c ut or a s woul d l e a d a pe r s on of or di na r y c a ut i on a nd p r ude nc e t o be l i e ve , or e nt e r t a i n a n hone s t or s t r ong s u s pi c i on, t ha t t he pe r s on i s gui l t y. I t doe s not de pe nd o n t he a c t u a l s t a t e of t he c a s e i n poi nt of f a c t , but u p on t he hone s t a n d r e a s ona bl e be l i e f of t he pa r t y c omme nc i ng t h e pr os e c ut i on. I n or de r t o ma i nt a i n a n a c t i on f or ma l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on, i t i s ve r y c l e a r t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f mus t a ve r a nd pr ove t ha t t he s ui t c om- p l a i ne d of wa s c omme nc e d a nd pr os e c ut e d wi t hout r e a s on- a b l e or pr oba bl e c a us e , a nd t ha t i t wa s ma l i c i ous . The wa r r a nt l e s s ne s s of t he s ui t ma y, i n ma ny i ns t a nc e s , be s o o b vi ous a s t ha t ma l i c e ma y be i nf e r r e d f r om i t . The q u e s t i on of pr oba bl e c a us e a ppl i e s t o t he na t ur e of t he s u i t , a nd t he poi nt of i nqui r y i s whe t he r t he de f e nda nt h a d pr oba bl e c a us e t o ma i nt a i n t he pa r t i c ul a r s ui t upon t h e e xi s t i ng f a c t s known t o hi m.
W o l a r d pa ge 137 ( c i t a t i ons omi t t e d) . o
W f i nd i t a ppr opr i a t e t o us e t he s a me de f i ni t i on f or pr oba b l e e
c a u s e i n t he c ont e xt of a wi l l f or f e i t ur e pr ovi s i on a nd a n a c t i o n f or ma l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on s i nc e bot h de a l wi t h t h e p r e ve nt i on o f i ni t i a t i ng l e ga l pr oc e e di n gs a ga i ns t a not he r . Si nc e i t i s t he r u l e i n Te n n e s s e e t ha t a dvi c e of c ouns e l ma y e s t a bl i s h pr oba bl e c a us e f or t he i ni t i a t i ng of pr oc e e di ngs i n a ma l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on c a s e , we h o l d t ha t i t a l s o ma y e s t a bl i s h pr oba bl e c a us e f or i ni t i a t i n g a wi l l c o nt e s t . Advi c e of c ouns e l c a n onl y be a de f e ns e , howe ve r , i f *6 t h e r e wa s a f ul l a nd f a i r di s c l os ur e of a l l ma t e r i a l f a c t s t o t h e a t t o r n e y, wi t hout omi s s i on or mi s r e pr e s e nt a t i on . Se e , e . g. , Kl e i n
v . El l i ot , 59 Te nn. App. 1, 436 S. W 2d 867 ( 1968) . .
Pl a i n t i f f ’ s c ouns e l a dmi t s i n hi s br i e f t ha t t he onl y ba s i s f or t he wi l l c ont e s t wa s t he a dvi c e of De f e nda nt ' s a t t or ne y. Gi v e n t h i s a d mi s s i on by Pl a i nt i f f , we a r e of t he opi ni on t ha t t hi s c a s e mus t be r e ma nde d f or a de t e r mi na t i on of t he s uf f i c i e nc y of
d i s c l o s ur e to M. r He a t h, a ppe l l a nt ' s a t t or ne y, to s uppor t t he
d e f e n s e of a dvi c e of c ouns e l .
For t he r e a s ons s e t f or t h a bove , t he j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l Co u r t i s r e ve r s e d. Cos t s a r e t a xe d t o t he a ppe l l e e a nd t hi s c a s e i s r e ma n de d t o t he t r i a l c our t f or s uc h ot he r a nd f ur t he r pr oc e e d -i n g s a s ma y be r e qui r e d i n c onf or mi t y wi t h t hi s opi ni on.
___________________________ _ _ _ Don T. M M r a y, J . c ur
CONCUR:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________________________ Ho u s t o n M Godda r d, Pr e s i di ng J udge .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________________________ Ch a r l e s D. Sus a no, J r . , J udge
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN SECTI ON
W LLI AM A. W NNI NGHAM I I , Ex e c u t o r of t he Es t a t e of Al s t o n W nni ngha m i ) ) ) FILED ) October 2, 1996 Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l e e ) ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. ) Appellate C ourt Clerk v. ) CUMBERLAND COUNTY ) 03A01- 9604- PB- 00152 ) TAM Y K. W NNI NGHAM M I ) ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )
DI SSENTI NG OPI NI ON
I r e s pe c t f ul l y di s s e nt f r om t he c onc l us i on r e a c he d i n t h e ma j or i t y opi ni on. I woul d f i nd t ha t t he c a s e a t ba r i s di s t i n -
g u i s h a b l e f r om W a r d v. Fe r r e l l , i n t ha t t he wi l l di d not c ont a i n ool
wha t I b e l i e ve i s t he c r i t i c a l c l a us e , " ( r e ga r dl e s s of whe t he r s u c h p r o c e e d i ngs a r e i ns t i t ut e d i n good f a i t h a nd wi t h pr oba bl e c a us e ) . "
I n l i ght of t he a bove - quot e d una mb i g u o us l a ngua ge , I wo u l d g i ve e f f e c t t o t he i nt e nt o f t he t e s t a t or whi c h i s c r ys t a l c l e a r , a nd a f f i r m t he Tr i a l Cour t .
_______________________________ Hous t on M Godda r d, P. J . .