FILED

October 2, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

 I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

ADA BELL BROWN a nd BEVERLY ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9605- 00174

J . EVERETT, MARI ON EVERETT )

BARTON, a nd GERALD J OSEPH ) BLEDSOE LAW

EVERETT, )

) HON. BUDDY L. PERRY,

Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lle e s , ) J UDGE

)

v. )

)

RALPH EVERETT ( i ndi vi dua l l y )

a nd a s Exe c ut or of t he Es t a t e )

of J os e ph Robe r t Eve r e t t ) , )

HERBERT D. EVERETT, J AMES R. )

EVERETT, DORI S D. HI GGI NS, )

KATI E T. TOMLI NSON a nd LAURA )

SHAW, ) AFFI RMED

) AND

De f e nda nt s - Appe l l a nt s . ) REMANDED

DAVI D R. SWAFFORD, SWAFFORD & SWAFFORD, Pi ke vi l l e , f or

Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lle e s .

EDWI N Z. KELLY, J R. , KELLY, KELLY & GOUGER, P. C. , J a s pe r , f or

De f e nda nt s - Appe lla nt s , Ra l ph Eve r e tt, J a me s R. Eve r e tt, Dor i s

D. Hi ggi ns , Ka t i e G. Toml i ns on, a nd La ur a Sha w.

O P I N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

I n t hi s c ont e s t of t he wi l l of t he de c e a s e d, J os e ph

Eve r e t t , a j ur y r e t ur ne d s peci a l ve r di c t s t ha t t he deceased

di d not ha ve s uf f i c i e nt me nt a l c a pa c i t y t o ma ke a va l i d wi l l ,
1Wa l t e r Ev e r e t t di e d i n 1993; hi s chi l d r e n Ma r i on Ev e r e t t Ba r t on and 

Ge r a l d Joseph Ev e r e t t we r e sub s t i t u t e d as pl a i n t i f f s i n p l ace o f t h e i r

f a t h e r .

2

a nd J os e ph Robe r t Eve r e t t , De c e a s e d, wa s undul y i nf l ue nc e d by

Ra l ph Eve r e t t on Ma r c h 11 t o t he e xt e nt t ha t s uc h i nf l ue nc e

a mount e d t o c oe r c i on, de s t r oyi ng t he f r e e wi l l of t he de c e a s e d

a nd s ubs t i t ut i ng hi s wi l l f or t he de c e a s e d a nd c ompe l l i ng t he

de c e a s e d t o ma ke a di s pos i t i on he ot he r wi s e woul d not ha ve

ma de .

The de f e nda nt s ha ve appeal e d and r a i s e s e ve r a l

i ssue s .

The de c e a s e d ha d e i ght c hi l dr e n. The ol de s t

c hi l dr e n we r e appe l l ees Ada Be l l Br own and Wa l t e r Eve r e t t

1

. 

The y f i l e d s ui t c ha l l e ngi ng de c e de nt ’ s Ma r c h 1991 wi l l , whi c h

l e f t t he m t e n dol l a r s e a c h a nd di vi de d t he r e ma i nde r of hi s

e s t a t e e qua l l y a mong hi s s i x younge r c hi l dr e n. The y a l l e ge d

t ha t de c e de nt wa s of uns ound mi nd, i nc ompe t e nt t o ma ke a wi l l ,

a nd undul y i nf l ue nc e d by de f e nda nt Ra l ph Eve r e t t . Af t e r t he

j ur y ve r di c t t he pr oba t e of t he wi l l wa s a nnul l e d a nd va c a t e d.

Wi t hi n one mont h of t he e xe c ut i on of t he wi l l , t he

Cha nc e r y Cour t of Bl e ds oe Count y, Te nne s s e e ha d f ound de c e de nt

t o be c ompe t e nt a nd di s mi s s e d a c ons e r va t or s hi p pr oc e e di ng.

Appe l l a nt s a r gue t ha t t he Tr i a l Cour t s houl d ha ve gr a nt e d

t he i r Pr e - Tr i a l Mot i on i n Li mi ne t ha t woul d ha ve pr e c l ude d t he

pl a i nt i f f s f r om a ny pr oof r e l a t i ve t o t he c ompe t e nc y of

de c e de nt pr i or t o t hi s he a r i ng. The y i ns i s t t ha t s uc h

e vi de nc e c ons t i t ut e d a r e l i t i ga t i on of de c e de nt ’ s me nt a l

c a pa c i t y i n 1991 a nd i s ba r r e d by c ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l .

Col l a t e r a l es t oppe l ope r a t e s t o ba r a s econd s ui t
3

be t ween t he s a me pa r t i e s and t he i r pr i vi e s on a di f f e r e nt

caus e of act i on onl y as t o i s s ue s whi c h we r e act ua l l y

l i t i ga t e d a nd de t e r mi ne d in the f or me r s ui t . Goeke v. Woods ,

777 S. W. 2d 347 ( Te nn. 1989) .

The pa r t i e s t o t he 1991 t r i a l we r e Ra l ph Eve r e t t a s

Pe t i t i one r , de c e de nt J os e ph Eve r e t t a s r e s ponde nt , pl a i nt i f f

Wa l t e r Eve r e t t a s r e s ponde nt ’ s a t t or ne y i n f a c t , a nd t he Fi r s t

Na t i ona l Ba nk. The j udge di s mi s s e d t he pe t i t i on s e e ki ng t he

a ppoi nt me nt of a c ons e r va t or a nd r e t ur ne d a l l a s s e t s he l d by

Wa l t e r Eve r e t t t o decede nt .

The pa r t i e s and i s s ue s we r e not i de nt i cal . Howe ve r ,

bot h he a r i ngs de a l t wi t h t he i s s ue of de c e de nt ’ s c ompe t e nc y

a nd i t c oul d be a r gue d t ha t Ada Be l l ’ s i nt e r e s t s we r e

r e pr e s e nt e d by he r br ot he r . Howe ve r , e ve n i f t he r e a r gua bl y

wa s a ny c ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l f r om t hi s he a r i ng, t he Te nne s s e e

Supr e me Cour t ha s he l d t ha t :

The e s t oppe l of a j udgme nt e xt e nds onl y t o t he f a c t s

i n i s s ue a s t he y e xi s t e d a t t he t i me t he j udgme nt

wa s r e nde r e d, a nd doe s not pr e ve nt a r e - e xa mi na t i on

of t he s a me que s t i on be t ween t he s a me pa r t i e s whe r e

i n t he i nt e r va l t he f act s ha ve cha nge d or ne w f act s

ha ve oc c ur r e d whi c h ma y a l t e r t he l e ga l r i ght s or

r e l a tions of the litiga nt s .

White v . White , 876 S. W. 2d 837 ( Te nn. 1994) .

He r e , t he decede nt ’ s deat h f r om Al z he i me r ’ s wa r r a nt s

a r e - e va l ua t i on of whe n t he di s eas e ma y ha ve be gun af f ect i ng

hi s j udgme nt . The Tr i a l Cour t di d not e r r i n a l l owi ng

t e s t i mony a nd pr oof a s t o hi s c ompe t e nc y a t t he t i me he

e xe c ut e d hi s will.

A s e c ond c ons e r va t or s hi p pr oc e e di ng wa s he l d mor e

t ha n a ye a r a f t e r the e xe c ution of the will. At tha t time ,

decede nt wa s decl a r e d una bl e t o ha ndl e hi s af f a i r s , and
2

RULE 4 0 1 . DEFI NI TI ON OF ?RELEVANT EVI DENCE. ? ?Re l e v a n t ev i d e n c e ? me a n s

e v i d e n ce h a v i n g an y t e n d e n c y t o ma k e t h e ex i s t e n ce o f an y f act t h a t i s

o f co n sequ e n ce t o t h e d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f t h e act i o n mo r e p r o b a b l e o r l ess

p r o b a b l e t h a n i t wo u l d b e wi t h o u t t h e ev i d e n ce.

4

de f e nda nt Ra l ph Eve r e t t wa s a ppoi nt e d a s c ons e r va t or .

De f e nda nt s a r gue t ha t t he s e c ond c ons e r va t or s hi p pr oc e e di ng i s

t oo r e mot e a nd not r e l e va nt t o t he de c e de nt ’ s s t a t e of mi nd

whe n t he wi l l wa s dr a wn.

The compe t e nc y t o ma ke a wi l l i s meas ur e d at t he

t i me t he pe r s on e xe c ut e s t he wi l l a nd not by t he i r me nt a l

c ondi t i on a n unr e a s ona bl e numbe r of ye a r s be f or e or a f t e r . I n

r e Es t at e of Mayes , 843 S. W. 2d 418, 427 ( Te nn. App. 1992) .

Evi de nc e of t he t e s t a t or ’ s me nt a l c ondi t i on a f t e r ma ki ng t he

will is a dmi s s i bl e , withi n ?r e a s ona bl e limits ?, I d. , quot i ng

Pr i t c ha r d on Wi l l s a nd Admi ni s t r a t i on of Es t a t e s , §98 a t 141.

He r e , i t wa s r eas ona bl e t o al l ow evi de nce of t he

c ons e r va t or s hi p he a r i ng he l d wi t hi n 14 mont hs . Mayes . Thi s

i s s ue i s r e l e va nt i n de t e r mi ni ng t he pr ogr e s s wi t h whi c h

Al z he i me r ’ s di s eas e ma y ha ve become mor e de bi l i t a t i ng.

Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Evi de nc e , 4012.

Ne xt, de f e nda nt s ins i s t tha t the Tr i a l Cour t e r r e d

i n a l l owi ng t he t e s t i mony of Dr . St ua r t Ba c on a nd J oa n DeBor d.

Dr . Ba c on f i r s t s a w de c e de nt i n Ma r c h of 1992, j us t ove r a

ye a r a f t e r the e xe c ution of the will. He te s tif i e d tha t ,

ba s e d on a r eas ona bl e de gr ee of me di cal cer t a i nt y, decede nt

di e d of Al z he i me r ’ s di s eas e . He t e s t i f i e d t ha t decede nt ha d

be e n s uf f e r i ng f r om Al z he i me r ’ s f or a mi ni mum of t wo ye a r s

be f or e hi s Oc t obe r , 1992 de a t h. 

De f e nda nt s a r gue t ha t t hi s e vi de nc e s houl d ha ve be e n

pr e c l ude d on t he gr ound t ha t i t ha d no r e l e va nc e t o t he
3

Rul e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED ACTI VI TY.

A me mo r a ndum, r e por t , r e c o r d , or dat a comp i l a t i on i n any f o r m of

a c t s , eve n t s , condi t i ons , opi n i ons , or di a gnos e s ma d e at or nea r t h e

t i me by or f r o m i n f o r ma t i on t r a n s mi t t e d by a pe r s on wi t h knowl e dge and a

b u s i n ess d u t y t o r eco r d o r t r a n s mi t i f k e p t i n t h e co u r se of a r e g u l a r l y

c o n d u c t e d b u s i n ess act i v i t y an d i f i t was t h e r e g u l a r p r act i ce o f t h a t

b u s i n ess act i v i t y t o ma k e t h e me mo r a n d u m, r e p o r t , r eco r d , o r d a t a

c o mp i l a t i o n , al l as s h o wn b y t h e t est i mo n y o f t h e cu s t o d i a n o r o t h e r

qua l i f i e d wi t n e s s , unl e s s t h e s our c e of i n f o r ma t i on of t h e me t hod or

c i r c u ms t a n ces of p r e p a r a t i o n i n d i cat e l ack o f t r u s t wo r t h i n ess . Th e t e r m

?b u s i n ess ? as used i n t h i s par a g r a p h i n c l u d es ever y k i n d o f b u s i n ess ,

i n s t i t u t i o n , ass o c i a t i o n , p r o f ess i o n , o ccu p a t i o n , an d cal l i n g , wh e t h e r

o r not conduc t e d f o r pr o f i t .

5

c ompe t e nc y of de c e de nt i n Ma r c h of 1991. The y a l s o obj e c t e d

t o t he e vi de nc e on t he ba s i s t ha t Dr . Ba c on’ s t e s t i mony

s t a t i ng t ha t de c e de nt woul d ha ve be e n e a s i l y i nf l ue nc e d whi l e

s uf f e r i ng f r om Al z he i me r ’ s wa s s pe c ul a t i on a nd c onj e c t ur e .

The evi de nce wa s r e l e va nt and admi s s i bl e . Te nne s s e e

Rul e s of Evi de nc e , Rul e 401.

J oa n DeBor d i s a home he a l t h c a r e nur s e who be ga n

vi s i t i ng de c e de nt mor e t ha n one mont h a f t e r t he e xe c ut i on of

hi s will. She ke pt r e c or ds of thos e vi s its a nd te s tif i e d f r om

he r not e s . The s e not e s s how t ha t t he deceased wa s de pr e s s e d

a nd l one l y a nd c onc e r ne d ove r hi s c hi l dr e n t r yi ng t o pl a c e hi m

i n a nur s i ng home a nd ha ve hi m de c l a r e d i nc ompe t e nt .

The Tr i a l Cour t r ul e d t ha t s he c oul d t e s t i f y f r om

he r r e c or ds unde r t he bus i ne s s r e c or ds e xc e pt i on t o t he

hear s a y r ul e . 3 Ms . DeBor d’ s te s timony me t the e s s e ntia l

e l e me nt s of t hi s hear s a y except i on. Me di car e gui de l i ne s

r e qui r e d t ha t s he ke e p r e c or ds of he r vi s i t s a nd s he pr e pa r e d

t he wr i t t e n r e por t s s hor t l y a f t e r he r vi si t s . Cohe n,

She ppe ar d, Pai ne , Te nne s s e e La w of Evi de nc e , §803( 6) ( 1995) .

The Tr i a l Cour t di d not e r r i n a l l owi ng t hi s e vi de nc e .

The Tr i a l Cour t de ni e d de f e nda nt s ’ r e que s t t ha t t he
6

j ur y be i ns t r uc t e d not t o c ons i de r a ny de c l a r a t i ons ma de by

t he de c e a s e d s ubs e que nt t o t he e xe c ut i on of t he wi l l . Thi s

i s s ue a ga i n de a l t wi t h t he t e s t i mony of J oa n DeBor d. The

Tr i a l J udge di d not e r r i n a l l owi ng t he j ur y t o c ons i de r t hi s

e vi de nce, becaus e i t wa s admi s s i bl e as an except i on t o t he

he a r s a y r ul e a l l owi ng i n r e c or ds of r e gul a r l y c onduc t e d

a c t i vi t y. Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Evi de nc e , 803( 6) .

Ne xt , de f e nda nt s a r gue t ha t t he Tr i a l Cour t e r r e d i n

c ha r gi ng t he Te nne s s e e Pa t t e r n J ur y I ns t r uc t i on r e l a t i ve t o

me nt a l c ompe t e nc y- me nt a l de l us i ons .

A j ur y c ha r ge wi l l not be i nva l i da t e d a s l ong a s i t

f a i r l y de f i ne s t he l e ga l i s s ue s i nvol ve d i n t he c a s e a nd doe s

not mi s l e a d t he j ur y. Ot i s v . Cambr i dge Mut ual Fi r e I ns ur anc e

Co. , 850 S. W. 2d 439 ( Te nn. 1992) .

De f e nda nt s a r gue t ha t pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ompl a i nt di d not

a l l e ge t ha t t he deceased wa s act i ng unde r a de l us i on at t he

t i me of t he e xe c ut i on of hi s wi l l . De f e nda nt s a l s o a r gue t ha t

t he r e wa s no pr oof t ha t de c e a s e d wa s unde r a de l us i on.

The r e f or e , the y ins i s t tha t the Tr i a l Cour t e r r e d in utiliz i ng

t he j ur y i ns t r uc t i ons r e l a t i ng t o me nt a l c ompe t e nc y- me nt a l

de l us i ons .

Thi s a r gume nt i s wi t hout me r i t . To t he c ont r a r y,

de c e de nt ’ s i l l he a l t h, c onf us i on, a nd hi s c a pa c i t y t o dr a w up

a will we r e di r e c tly a t is s ue , a s the r e is no a lle ga tion

t he r e wa s a mi s s t a t e me nt of l a w i n t he j ur y cha r ge . 

The j ur y i ns t r uc t i ons r e ga r di ng undue i nf l ue nc e

i nf or me d t he j ur y t ha t undue i nf l ue nc e c ons i s t e d of ?act s or

c onduc t whi c h i n t he mi nd of t he t e s t a t or i s ove r c ome by t he

wi l l of a not he r pe r s on . . . de s t r oyi ng t he f r e e e xe r c i s e of
7

t he t e s t a t or , s ubs t i t ut i ng f or hi s own wi l l a not he r pe r s on’ s

will. ?

Aga i n, de f e nda nt s t a ke i s s ue wi t h whe t he r t he c ha r ge

wa s s uppor t e d by e vi de nc e , not wi t h a ny a l l e ga t i ons t ha t t he

l a w wa s mi s s t a t e d. The j ur y c ha r ge e c hoe s t hos e a ppr ove d i n

Mitc he l v . Smith, 779 S. W. 2d 384 ( Te nn. App. 1989) , a nd t hi s

i ss ue is the r e f or e wi t hout me r i t . 

The r e ma i ni ng i s s ue s we f i nd t o be wi t hout me r i t a s

t he r e i s s ubs t a nt i a l ma t e r i a l e vi de nc e t o s uppor t t he j ur y’ s

s pe c i a l ve r di c t s . Ac c or di ngl y, we a f f i r m t he j udgme nt of t he

Tr i a l Cour t a nd r e ma nd a t a ppe l l a nt s ’ c os t .

________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

CONCUR:

___________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, P. J .

___________________________

Cha r l e s D. Sus a no, J r ., J .