1 

# F I LED Ma rch 30, 2000 Cec ilCr o w s on ,Jr. Appellate Court Cler

k I N TH E CO U R T O F APPEALS O

F TENNESSEE AT KNO XVI L L E

I N RE: ) E1999- 00194- C O A - R3- C V ESTATE O

F L I L L I E M

A E ) P O RTER . ) ) ) ) ) APPEAL AS O

F RI G H T FRO M TH E ) L O

U D O N CO U N TY PRO BATE CO

U R T ) APPLI CATI O

N O F ATTOR

NEYS ) M ARY KATH

ERI NE LO

N G W O RTH ) and PEGG

Y J . S . M

O N G ER, FOR ) FEES AND

EXPENSES, ) ) H O N O R A B LE W I LLI A M H . R U SSELL, Appl i c a n t s - Appel l ant s . ) J U D G E

For Appel l ant s For Appel l e e s Ted L . Por t e r and Shi r l ey Port er W heel e r M ARY KATH

ERI NE LO

N G W O RTH J ESS D . CAM PBELL PE GGY J . S . M

ONGER Cam pbel l &

D awson Loudon, Tenne s s e e Knoxv i l l e , Tenne s s e e For Appel l e e Es t a t e of J ohn Ker l e y RUF US W

. BEA M ER, J R. Knoxv i l l e , Tenne s s e e



### O P I N I O N2

VACATED

AND REM AND E D Sus ano, J . Thi s ca s e i n v o l v e s an a ppl i c a t i on i n pr obat e f o r t h e f ees and expen

ses of at t orneys M ary Kat heri ne Lo

ngw ort h an

d P eggy J . S . M o n ger (“t he A

t t orneys”) ari s i ng o u t of t hei r r epresent a t i o n o f T ho m a s S . H

a r v e y , the for m

e r e x e c ut o r o f the Es t a t e o f Lillie M ae Po r t er (“t he E

s t a t e”). Be i ng d i s s a t i s f i ed w

i t h t he p

robat e cou r t ’ s aw

ard, t he A

t t orneys appeal ed. For t he reason s s t a t e d herei n , w

e vacat e t he j u d

g m ent of t he l o w

er court and

rem and f o r f u r t her pr oce edi ngs .

W e are f aced w

i t h a d

i sput e regar d i ng at t orney’ s f ees and e xpe n s e s al l e g edl yi ncur r ed i n conne c t i on w i t h t h e a dm i ni s t r a tion

of the Es t a t e . M s . Po r t e r ’ s 1 990

w ill a ppo i n

t e d a t t o r ney Edw

i n H . Ar nol d ex e c u t o r of t he Es t a t e . A 1993 codi c i l t o t hat w

i l l r e m

o v ed Ar nol d as ex e c u t o r and de s i gna t ed M s . Por t e r ’ s s on, Thom a s S. H

a r v e y (“ t he Pr oponent ” ) t o s e r v e i n hi s p l a c e . The Pr oponent em p l o y ed t he At t o r ney s t o r epr e s ent t h e E s t a t e . Ther e wer e t w o l awsui t s , one i n ci r cui t cour t and one i n cha nce r ycour t , and m any pr oce edi ngs , i ncl udi ng a pr i o r appe a l , t ouchi ng upon t he v a l i d i t yand e f f i c a c y of t e s t a m ent a r ydocum

ent s a lle g e dl ys i gne d

byM s . Po r t e r . U

ltim a t e l y , ajur yin

c i r c ui t cour t f ound t he 1990 w i l l v a l i d , but det e r m i ned t hat t he 1993 codi c i l w

a s i n v a l i d . The Pr oponent w a s r e m o v ed a s ex e c u t o r of t he Es t a t e a nd Ar nol d qual i f i ed t o adm i n i s t e r t he Es t a t e . W hen t he At t o r ney s m o v ed i n t he i n s t ant ca s e t o r e c o v e r t hei r f ees and expen ses f rom

t he E s t a t e , ben

e f i c i ari es und

er t h e1TedL. Po r t er and Shi r l ey Port er W heeler are al so bene f i c i ari es unde r t he 1 9 9 3 co dici l .

2 D uri ng the course of t his l i t i gat i o n, John K erl ey di ed, and his est a t e w as subst i t uted i n hi s pl ace. 3 1990 w i l l 1 - - Ted L . Por t e r , Shi r l e y Por t e r W hee l e r , and J ohn Ker l e y , w

ho ar e t he t w

o s t epc h i l d r en a nd br o t her r e s pec t i v e l yof M s . Po r t er (col l ect i vel y “t he C o n t est ant s”) -

- ob

j ect ed t o t hei r appl i c a t i on. Af t e r a be nch t r i a l , t he c our t bel o w awar ded t h e A t t o r ney s $32, 000, w h i ch i s onl ya por t i on of t he r eque s t e d a m ount , and t a x ed ha l f of t he a w a r d t o t he Es t a t e a nd t he ot her hal f t o t he Pr oponent i ndi v i dual l y . The At t o r ney s appe a l , r a i s i ngw

ha t a r e e s s e ntia llytw ois s ue s : 1 . D i d the pr ob a t e c our t e r r in fa ilingto a w ard t he A

t t orneys t hei r ent i re cl a i m of $41, 986? 2 . D i d t he pr obat e c our t er r i n t a x i ng onl y ha lf of the aw

a r d tothe Es t a t e ? T h e app e l l ees, Ted

L. Po r t er, Shi r l ey Port er W heel er, and

t h e E s t a t e of J ohn Ker l e y , 2r a i s e a n i s s ue on a ppea l , ques t i oni n g w het her t he A

t t orneys can p

ursue a di rect cl a i m agai nst t h e Es t a t e . I. Backgr oun d O n Se p t e m

ber 14, 1990, M

s . Por t e r pur por t edl yex e c u t e d her l a s t w

i l l and t e s t a m

ent . The wi l l w

a s pr epa r ed by a L oudon, Ten nessee, l a w

f i r m . W hen prob a t ed, i t w

as accom

pan i ed b y an a ffidav it of a tte s t a tion pr e pa r e d

c o nt e m

po r a ne ous l yw

ith the w i l l . Under t he pr o v i s i ons of t he 1990 w i l l , t he Pr oponent w a s4

t o recei ve cer t a i n real prop ert y , and

t he rem

a i n d er of t he E

s t a t e w a s t o be di v i ded a s f o l l o w s : 20% t o t he Pr oponent ; 20% t o Ted L . Por t e r ; 25%

t o Shi r l e y Por t e r W hee l e r ; 25%

t o J ohn Ker l e y ; and 2 . 5 % ea ch t o M

s . Por t e r ’ s f our s t ep- g r andc h i l d r en. As pr e v i ous l y i ndi c a t ed, at t o r ney Edw i n H . Ar nol d w

a s des i gna t ed a s ex e c u t o r of t he Es t a t e unde r t he 1990 w i l l . O n Sep t e m ber 9, 19

9 3 , M s . Po r t er al l egedl y execut ed a codi c i l t o t he 1990 w i l l . The 1993 codi c i l does not cha nge t h e d i s pos i t i on of t he r e a l pr oper t yt o t he Pr oponent , but does m odi f yt he di v i s i on of t he r e m a i nder of t he Es t a t e . The P r oponent ’ s s har e i ncr e a s e s f r o m 20% t o 50%

. The s har e of Shi r l e y Por t e r W

hee l e r dec r e a s e s f r o m 25% t o 20%

, and J ohn Kerl ey’ s s hare i s el i m i nat ed. Th

e cod i c i l do

es not chan

ge t h e beque s t s t o Ted L . Por t e r and t he s t ep- g r andc h i l d r en. The codi c i l s ubs t i t u t e s t he Pr oponent , i n pl a c e of Ar nol d , as t h e execut or of t he E s t a t e . Th

e cod i c i l w as al so accom

pan i ed b y an a ffidav it of a tte s t a tion bythe w

itne s s e s totha t ins t r um e nt . M s . Por t e r di ed i n Nove m ber , 1993. The Pr oponent , as e x e c u t o r under t he 1993 codi c i l , of f e r ed t he 1990 w i l l and t h e 1993 codi c i l f o r pr obat e . The Cont e s t ant s f i l ed a cont e s t as t o bot h i n s t r u m

ent s . O

n Apr i l 20, 1995, t he Pr obat e Cour t ce r t i f i e d t he w ill c o nt e s t toc i r c uit c our t for tr i a l . I n itia lly , the Pr o po ne nt r e t a i ne d the s e r v i c e s o f a t t o r ney Pet e r Al l i m an. The Pr oponent t hen r e t a i ned a t t o r ney J am e s H a r v e yS t utts for abr i e f pe r i o d o f tim

e . T he c l a i m

a nt s now bef o r e us f i r s t m e t w i t h t he Pr oponent on or about Apr i l 26,5

1995. They w

e r e s ubs t i t u t ed a s couns e l f o r t he Es t a t e i n pl a c e o f St u t t s on J u l y10, 1995.

W hile it is not e ntir e l yc l e a r in the r e c o r d

b e f o r e us , it a ppe a r s tha t the C o nt e s t a nt s r a i s e d thr e e is s ue s in

the w ill cont e s t : (1) w

het her t he 1990 w i l l w a s i n v a l i d due t o undue i n f l uenc e a nd w

het her M

s . Por t e r ’ s s i gna t u r e was f o r g e d t o t h e 1993 codi c i l ; (2) w het her a pr i o r w

i l l ex e c u t ed i n 1975 and codi c i l s ex e c u t ed t her e t o i n 1980 and 1984 w e r e l o s t or s pol i a t e d t e s t a m ent a r ydocum

ent s ; and ( 3) whet her t he wi l l s and c odi c i l s e x e c u t ed i n t he 1970s byM s . Por t e r and he r l a t e hus band were m u t ual and c ont r a c t ual , t her eby r ende r i ng M s . Por t e r ’ s 1990 w i l l a nd 1 993 c o di c il in

v a lid . S i nc e , the la tte r tw ois s ue s a r e i na ppr o pr i a t e for aw ill c o nt e s t in

c i r c uit c our t, tw oo f the C o n t est ant s f i l ed sui t regar d i ng t hese m a t t ers i n ch

ancery cou

r t i n Nove m

ber , 1995. I n addi t i on t o s u i ng t he Es t a t e , t h e pl a i n tiffs in

tha t a c tion

s ue d the Pr o po ne nt pe r s o na lly , a lle gi ng t hat t he Pr oponent ca u s ed M s . Por t e r t o cha nge t he de s i gna t i on on c e r t a i n

c e r tific a t e s of de pos it s ho r tlyb e f o r e he r de a t h, the r e by di m i ni s hi ngthe a s s e t s of the Es t a t e . T he w ill c o nt e s t in c i r cui t cour t w

a s pos t poned pendi ng t he out com e of t he c a s e i n chan cery cou

r t . I n t he c hanc e r ycour t s u i t , t he Pr oponent def ende d h i m s e l f i ndi v i dual l yand t he At t o r ney s r epr e s ent ed hi m i n hi s capaci t y as execut or of t he E s t a t e . Th

e sui t agai nst t h e P r oponent i ndi v i dual l yw a s v o l unt a r i l ydi s m i s s ed. The Chanc e l l o r di s m i s s e d the pl a i n

tiffs ’ c l a i m

s a g a i ns t the Es t a t e a t the c l os e o f the i r pr o o f, findi ngtha t the yfa ile d toe s t a blis h

alos t or6

s polia t e d

w ill a nd

tha t the yha d

fa ile d

toe s t a blis h

the exi s t ence o

f a con

t ract bet w

een M s . Po r t er and h

er l a t e hu

sband . Thi s dec i s i on w

a s af f i r m

ed by t h i s Cour t , and t he S upr e m e Cour t deni ed pe r m

i s s i on t o appe a l . Upon concl u s i on of t he c hanc e r ycour t ac t i on, t he wi l l cont e s t ca s e m

o v ed f o r w

a r d . The At t o r ney s depos ed s e v e r a l i ndi v i dual s , i ncl udi ng Ve l v a a nd H o w a r d W i l s on, t he t w

o w i t nes s e s t o t he e x e cut i on of M s . Por t e r ’ s pur por t ed 1993 codi c i l , and S a m J ones , t he a t t o r ney w ho pr epa r ed i t . The At t o r ney s al s o as s e r t t hat t hey ret a i ned t he serv i ces of a f orensi c do cum ent exam

i ner w ho w a s ex pec t ed t o t e s t i f yt hat t he s i gna t u r e on t he 1993 c o di c il w

a s tha t of M

s . Po r t e r . For r e a s ons not di s c l o s ed i n t he r e c o r d bef o r e us , t h e P r oponent t e r m

i nat ed t he s e r v i c e s of t he At t o r ney s on or about D e c e m ber 15, 1997, and t he At t o r ney s w i t hdr ew f r o m

t he wi l l cont e s t ca s e on F ebr uar y12, 1998. The Pr oponent pr oce ede d i n t ha t litiga tion

w ithout the a s s i s t a nc e o f c ouns e l. T he jur y f ound t hat t he 1990 w i l l w a s v a l i d , but hel d t hat t he 1993 codi c i l w

a s i n v a l i d . The c our t t hen e n t e r ed a j udgm ent on M

a r c h 13, 1998, dec l a r i ng t he 1993 codi c i l i n v a l i d -

- “nul l and v o i d a b i nitio ”

- - and de c l a r i ng t he 1990 w i l l v a l i d . Acc o r d i ngl y , t h e P r oponent w

a s r e m o v ed a s ex e c u t o r of t he Es t a t e a nd Ar nol d w a s appoi n t ed i n hi s pl a c e .

O n O c t ober 23, 1998, t he At t o r ney s f i l ed a “M o t i on t o S e t At t o r ney ’ s Fe e s ” i n pr obat e c our t , s e e k i ng $41, 986 i n f e e s and e xpe n s e s . I n s uppor t of t hei r m o t i on, t hey at t a c hed a n3 T he other hal f w as t axed to t he Propo nent i n di v i d ua l l y ; how ever, i t i s not cl ear f rom

t he r ecor d w

het her t he Pr oponent w a s se r v ed wi t h a copy of t h e A t t orne y s ’ m

o t i on. I n any ev ent , t h i s por t i on of t he cour t ’ s j udgm ent i s not a t i ssue on thi s appeal. H o w ever, i f t he Propo nent w as not properl y m ade a par t y t o t he f ee a ppl i cat i on proc eedi ng, w e doubt t hat t he awar d aga i nst hi m has any va l i d i t y . 7 i t e m i zed st a t e m

ent of ser v i ces r end ered and

expen ses . Th

e Cont e s t ant s f i l ed obj e c t i ons t o t he At t o r ney s ’ r eque s t f o r f e e s and expen ses . A hea r i ng was hel d i n Pr obat e Cour t on D e c e m ber 17, 1998. O

n Apr i l 23, 1999, t hat cour t awar ded t he At t o r ney s $32, 000, t a x i ng ha l f of t hat am ount t o t he Es t a t e . 3 The c our t m a de nos pe c ific findi ngs o f fa c t .

Pur s uant t o t he pr o v i s i ons of Rul e 24( c ) , T. R . A . P . , t h e A t t o r ney s f i l ed a St a t e m ent of t he Ev i denc e on J u l y23, 1999. T h e St a t e m

ent ref l ect s 17 p i eces of evi den

ce, i ncl u d

i n g a f f i dav i t s , depos i t i ons , pl e a d i ngs i n t he c hanc e r ycour t ca s e , t he fina l judgm

e nt in the w ill c o nt e s t c a s e , the 1 99 3 c o di c il a nd a c c o m pa n y i nga ffidav it of a tte s t a tion, a nd the br i e f file d

bythe A t t orneys i n t he earl i er appea l . Acc o r d i ng t o t he S t a t e m ent of t he Ev i denc e , t h e depos i t i ons of Vel v a W i l s on, H

o w a r d W i l s on, and S a m

J ones w

e r e o f f ered i n t o evi den ce at t he h

eari ng o

n t he A

t t orneys’ f ee and expen se r equ

est and

w ere accept ed as such by t he co

urt w i t h o u t ob j e c tion

fr o m the C o nt e s t a nt s . A

dditiona lly , the S t a t e m e nt of t he Ev i denc e i ndi c a t e s t hat couns e l f o r t he Cont e s t ant s , w h i l e a r gui ng t hat t he Pr oponent and not t he Es t a t e s houl d be res p o nsi b l e f or t he f ees and expen ses , agreed t hat t he sum s r eque s t ed by t he At t o r ney s w e r e r e a s onabl e .8 O n J u l y30, 1999, couns e l f o r t he Cont e s t ant s f i l ed a n obj e c t i on t o t he At t o r ney s ’ St a t e m ent of t he Ev i denc e . They ass ert ed (1 ) t hat i t w as i m prop er t o i ncl u d

e t he af oresai d depos i t i ons i n t he r e c o r d , and ( 2) t hat t hough t hey ag r e e d t hat t he At t o r ney s ’ hour l yr a t e was r e a s onabl e a nd di d not ques t i o n t he num

ber of hour s ac t ual l yex pende d , t hey di d cont end t hat m any o f t hes e e xpe nded hour s w e r e unne c e s s a r y . I n addi t i on, t hey argued that t he serv i ces r end ered by t he A

t t orneys w

ere pri m

ari l y f o r t he be nef i t of t he Pr oponent , not t he Es t a t e , and t her e f o r e t he Pr oponent s houl d be r e s pons i b l e f o r t he pa y m ent of t hes e f e e s . O

n Se p t e m

ber 3, 1999, t he pr obat e c our t ce r t i f i ed t hat t h e S t a t e m ent of t he Ev i denc e a s s ubm i t t ed by t he At t o r ney s w a s correct . See Rul e 24( e ) , T. R . A . P . (“ Abs ent ex t r aor d i nar y c i r c um s t a nc e s , the de t e r m i na tion

o f the tr i a l c our t [ a s tothe accuracy of t he record] i s concl usi ve. ” ) II. S t andard of Revi e w I n t h i s non- j u r yca s e , our r e v i ew i s de novoupon t h e r e c o r d . Rul e 13( d), T. R . A . P . ; W rig h t v . C ityo f K

noxv ille , 898 S . W . 2d 177, 181 (Tenn. 1995); Un i on Carbi de Cor p. v. H uddl es t on, 854 S. W

. 2d 87, 91 (Te nn. 1993). Beca u s e t he pr obat e c our t m ade nos pe c ific findi ngs of fa c t, the r e is not hi ngin thi s r e c o r d

to w h i ch t he pr e s u m

p t i on of cor r e c t nes s ca n at t a c h . See K e l l y v. K e lly , 679 S. W

. 2d 458, 460 (Tenn. C t . App. 1984). Thus , on our d e nov or e v i e w

, w e m us t a s c e r t a i n, if a t a ll pos s i bl e , w ha t fa c t s9

a r e s uppor t ed by t he pr eponde r anc e of t he e v i denc e . G a n zevoo r t v . Rus s e l l , 949 S. W . 2d 293, 296 (Tenn. 1997).

III. Anal y s i s A . Beforead

dressing

t he issues raised by t he A

t t o r neys, w e m us t fir s t a na l yz e the is s ue r a i s e d bythe C

o nt e s t a nt s , i.e. , w het her t he A

t t orneys can p

ursue a di rect cl a i m agai nst t h e Est a t e f or f ees and expen ses al l egedl y ear ned and i ncu r r ed i n t h e r epr e s ent a t i on of t he Pr oponent i n hi s ca pac i t yas ex e c u t o r .

The Cont e s t ant s r e l yupon T. C . A . § 30- 2 - 606 (1984), w h i ch pr o v i des as f o l l o w s : T h e cl erk shal l charge every such acc o u n t i n g par t yw

i t h al l s uch s u m

s of m oney as he ha s recei ved, or m

i ght have recei ved by usi ng d u e and reas o n

abl e di l i gence, and shal l credi t h i m w i t h a r e a s onabl e c o m pens a t i on f o r hi s services, an

d w i t h suc h di s bursem

e n t s as h

e s uppor t s byl awf u l v ouche r s . They al s o ci t e our dec i s i on i n t he c a s e of I n reEstat e o f W a lla c e , 829 S. W

. 2d 696 (Tenn. C t . App. 1992). I n I n reEstat e o f W a lla c e , w

e s a i d tha t “[w ]hen [executors ] ret a i n co u n sel , t hey are pe r s o na llylia bl e for the fe e s until ac our t det erm i nes t hat t he serv i ces w ere r equ

i red and t hat t he f ee w

as r easonab

l e . I f a cou

r t app roves t he f ee, t he execu t or m ay charge i t back agai nst t he est a t e as one o f t he co s t s10 o f adm i n i s t r a t i on under [T. C . A . § 30- 2 - 606]. ” I d . a t 703

( c iting S t ate ex rel D a h l berg v. A m erica n Su r . C o . , 121 S. W

. 2d 546 (Tenn. 1938)) . Es t a t e f unds m a y onl ybe us ed t o pay f or l egal f ees i f (1) t he serv i ces w ere requi red; (2) t he serv i ces w ere f or t h e b e ne fit of the e s t a t e r a t he r tha n for the bene f i t of one or m o r e of t he i n t e r e s t e d par t i e s ; and ( 3) t he a m ount of t he r eque s t e d f ee i s r easonab

l e . I d . “ R

e qui r i ngthe execut or t o requ

est t hat l egal f ees be pa i d f rom t he est a t e i s m

ore t han

a proced

ural t e c hni c a lity . It r e c og ni z e s tha t the e x e c ut o r is , in

the fir s t ins t a nc e , lia bl e f o r the fe e s a nd

tha t the e s t a t e is o nl y second ari l y l i abl e . I t al so recogn i zes t hat b yr eque s t i ng t hat t he f e e s be pa i d f r o m t h e est a t e , t he execu t or cert i f i es t hat t he f ees w e r e , i n t he e x e cut o r ’ s opi n i on, r equi r ed a n d reas o n abl e . ” I d . at 704. W e do not ques t i on t he a u t hor i t yof T. C . A . § 30- 2 - 606 (1984) and t he pr e c ede n t i a l v a l ue of I n reEstat e o f W

a lla c e . In t he t y p i c a l ca s e , i t i s t he e x e cut o r w ho s houl d pur s ue t h e cour t ’ s appr o v a l of hi s or her at t o r ney ’ s f e e s and e xpe n s e s . H o w ever , w

e do no t bel i eve t hat t h i s general rul e i s a bar t o t h e A t t o r ney s ’ appl i c a t i on i n t he i n s t ant ca s e . H e r e , f o r unknow

n r e a s ons , t he Pr oponent di s cha r g e d t he At t o r ney s . Then, t o m ake m a tte r s w

o r s e for hi m

, he de f e nde d

hi m s e lf in

the w ill c o nt e s t c a s e . H

e w a s not s uc c e s s f ul. A ll of thi s hi s t o r yis c a l c ul a t e d t o pr oduce l e s s t han f r i endl yf e e l i ngs t o w a r d t he At t o r ney s i n t he m i nd of t he Pr oponent . Under t he uni que c i r cum s t anc e s of t hi s c a s e , w

e be lie v e it is a ppr o pr i a t e for the A ttor ne y s to p u r s ue t hei r appl i cat i o n f or f ees and expen ses di rect l y agai nst t he Es t a t e . I f ei t her s i de wi s hes t o m ake t he Pr oponent a pa r t y t o t h i s di s put e or s e c u r e hi s t e s t i m onyon t he i s s ues per t a i n i n g t o t h i s cl a i m

, pr oce dur e s f o r doi ng s a m e a r e i n pl a c e . The Cont e s t ant s ’ i s s ue i s f ound adv e r s e t o t hem .11 B. T h e At t orneys have rai sed w hat are es sent i a l l y t w o i s s ues : (1) w

het her t he pr obat e c our t er r ed i n awar d i ng t hem onl y a por t i on of t hei r r eque s t ed f e e s and e xpe n s e s ; and ( 2) whet her t he pr obat e c our t er r ed i n t a x i ng onl yhal f of t he a w a r d t o t h e Es t a t e . T

he A ttor ne y s a r gue tha t the ya r e e ntitle d tothe e ntir e a m ount r eque s t ed a nd t hat t he Es t a t e s houl d be r e s pons i b l e f o r i t i n tot o . Th

e Co n t est ant s ar gue t hat t he f ees and expen ses are e x c e s s i v e a nd t hat t he Es t a t e s houl d not be r equi r ed t o pay t hem becau se t hey w

ere r end

ered excl usi vel y f or t he b enef i t of t h e P r oponent i ndi v i dual l y .

The f o l l o w

i ng pr i nci p l e s gov e r n t he r e s o l u t i on of t h i s case: O

ne w h o i s nam

ed as an execut or i n a w i l l has a l egal du t y “ t o o f f er t he w

i l l f or prob

a t e and

t o t ake t he n

ecess ary st eps, i ncl udi ng t he e m

p l o y m ent of couns e l , t o r e s i s t a c ont e s t and t o s us t a i n

the w ill....” I n re Es t at e of Tayl or , 388 S. W . 2d 657, 660 (Te nn. C t . App. 1963). O ne who f u l f i l l s t h i s dut yi n good f a ith is e ntitle d

toc os t s a nd

a ttor ne y ’ s fe e s . S m ith v . H a ire , 181 S. W

. 161, 162 (Tenn. 1915). Thi s i s t r ue e v en i f t he wi l l i s ultim a t e l yfound

tobe in

v a lid . I d . An at t o r ney w ho has a s s i s t ed a n ex e c u t o r w ho has pr opounded a wi l l i n good f a i t h i s ent i t l ed t o reasona b l e f ees and expen ses agai nst t he est a t e . See Love v. Cave , 622 S. W . 2d 52, 57 (Te nn. C t . App. 1981). The de t e r m

i nat i on of t he r e a s onabl ene s s of f e e s and expen ses request ed b

y an execu

t or i s general l y w i t h i n t h e di s c r e tion

of the tr i a l c our t, I n reEstat e o f W

a lla c e , 82912

S . W . 2d at 700- 01, and “ m u s t be m

ade i n l i ght of al l t he r e l e v ant c i rcum s t ances, i ncl u d

i ng t he ext ent of t he execu t or’ s r e s po ns i bilitie s , the na t ur e o f the s e r v i c e s r e nde r e d , the p r o m p t nes s and a dequa c y of t he s e r v i c e s , and t he v a l ue of t h e ben e f i t s conf err ed. ” I d . at 701.

A s a g ene r a l pr opos i t i on, an e x e cut o r w ho i s t h e p r i m a r ybene f i c i a r yof a wi l l and who i s r e s pons i b l e f o r p r ocur i ng t he wi l l byf r aud or undue i n f l uenc e i s not ent i t l ed t o c o s t s or f e es . Ha i r e , 18 1 S. W . at 16

2 . H o w ever , “a case m

a y a r i s e i n w

h i ch t he j u r yw

oul d f i nd f r aud a nd undue i n f l uenc e wi t h enoug h ev i denc e t o r equi r e a n appr o v a l of s uch a v e r d i c t byt h e cou r t , and

yet t here m

i ght be i n such

a case ci rcum

s t ances t hat w oul d jus tifythe a tte m pt e d pr ob a t e o f the w ill in g o o d fa ith. ” I d . at 162- 63.

A s t o t he At t o r ney s ’ f e e s and e xpe n s e s i ncur r ed i n conne c t i on w

i t h t he pr opoundi ng a nd def endi ng of t he 1990 w i l l and 1993 codi c i l , t he que s t i on t hat m u s t be de c i ded i s w het her execut or H

arv ey w

as act i ng i n go

o d f a i t h w

hen he at t e m

p t ed t o p r obat e t hes e t w

o i n s t r u m

ent s and t her e a f t e r def ende d t hei r v a lidityin

the w ill c o nt e s t c a s e . R e g r e tta bl y , w

e a r e una bl e , on t he r e c o r d bef o r e us , t o m ake t h i s det e r m

i nat i on w

i t h any cert a i n t y . Beca u s e t he he a r i ng on t he At t o r ney s ’ appl i c a t i on f o r f ees and expen

ses w as not t ranscr i bed , w e m ay onl y consi der as e v i denc e i n t h i s ca s e t hat w h i ch i s cont a i ned i n t he At t o r ney s ’ S t a t e m ent of t he Ev i denc e whi ch was appr o v ed by t he pr obat e13

cour t . The g r ound upon w h i ch t he j u r yi n t he wi l l cont e s t f ound t he c o di c il tobe in v a lid is pa r tic ul a r l yr e l e v a nt tothe ques t i on of w

het her t he Pr oponent pr opounded t he c odi c i l i n good f a i t h . Ther e a r e onl yt w o docum

ent s i n t he S t a t e m ent of t h e E v i denc e t hat ev en r e m o t e l yaddr e s s t h i s ques t i on. O ne i s none v i de ntia r yin

na t ur e . T

ha t is the Es t a t e ’ s br i e f in the a ppe a l o f the c ha nc e r yc our t s uit. It m e ntions , in

pa s s i ng , tha t tw oo f t he Cont e s t ant s “c l a i m ed, am ong ot her t h i ngs , t hat t he Codi c i l w a s a f o r g e r yand t hat t he W i l l w a s obt a i ned t h r ough t he undue i n f l uenc e of [t he Pr oponent ] . ” S e c ond, t he c i r cui t cour t ’ s f i nal j udgm e nt in the w ill c o nt e s t s t a t e s tha t the jur yfound a s f ollow s : 1 . T

he La s t W

ill a nd

T e s t a m e nt of Lillie Por t e r dat ed S ept e m ber 14, 1990. . . i s t h e v a lid W ill of the s a i d

Lillie Po r t e r . 2 . The Codi c i l t o t he L a s t W i l l and Te s t a m

ent o f Lillie Po r t e r da t e d S e pt e m

b e r 9, 1 99 3...is not a v a l i d Codi c i l and i s v o i d ab i n i t i o . Cons p i cuous l yabs ent f r o m t he r e c o r d now

bef o r e us i s any t h i ng, such as pl eadi ngs, det a i l i ng t he p reci se i s s ues t hat w ere litiga t e d

in the w ill c o nt e s t c a s e . W a s the a lle g e d

undue i n f l uenc e of t he Pr oponent onl ycha r g e d w i t h r e s pec t t o t he 1990 w i l l and not as t o t he 1993 codi c i l ? I f t he 1993 codi c i l w a s f o r g e d , w

ho al l e g edl yf o r g e d i t ? W a s t he f o r g e r yt he work of t h e P r oponent or w

a s i t done by anot her w i t hout t he Pr oponent ’ s k n o w l edge? Th

ese quest i o n

s al l have a beari ng o n t he l egal e ffe c t of the judgm e nt in the w ill c o nt e s t c a s e o n the ins t a nt c a s e . Ther e a r e no de f i n i t i v e a n s w e r s t o t he que s t i ons pos ed -

- ques t i ons t hat obv i ous l ybea r upon t he i s s ue of w het her t h e14

P r oponent pr opounded and de f ende d t hes e i n s t r u m ent s i n good f a ith. Speci f i cal l y , t he St a t e m ent of t he E

v i den ce do es not addr e s s , t o our s a t i s f a c t i on, t he que s t i on of w het her t he j u r yi n t he wi l l cont e s t f ound t hat t he Pr oponent w r ongf u l l ypr ocur ed t h e e x e c u t i on of t he 1993 codi c i l . Ther e i s , how e v e r , a s t r ong s ugg e s t i on i n t he non- e v i dent i a r ydocum ent s i n t he r e c o r d -

- bot h t hos e a u t hor ed by t he a t t o r ney s f o r t he a ppel l ant s and t hos e aut hor ed by t he a t t o r ney s f o r t he a ppel l e e s - - t hat t he i s s ues i n t he w ill c o nt e s t w

e r e , i n

t e r alia , ( 1 ) w

he t he r the w

ill w a s p r ocur ed t h r ough t he undue i n f l uenc e of t he Pr oponent ; and ( 2 ) w het her t he c odi c i l w a s f o r g e d bys o m

eone w ho i s ot her w

i s e uni dent i f i ed. Addi t i onal l y , m any of t he Cont e s t ant s ’ ar gum ent s s e e m t o be pr e m

i s ed upon t he a s s u m p t i on t hat t he j u r yf ound t hat t he Pr oponent w

a s s o m ehow i n v o l v ed i n t he c i r cum s t anc e s s u r r oundi ng t he i n v a l i d i t yof t he 1993 codi c i l . Ther e i s , how e v e r , no evi den

c e r e fle c tingtha t the jur y , e ithe r e x pr e s s l y o r bycl e a r i m

p l i c a t i on, f ound t hat t he Pr oponent f o r g e d t h e codi c i l or ot her w i s e wrongf u l l ypr ocur ed i t s ex e c u t i on. W i t hout m o r e , t he m

o s t w e c an now d

educ e f r o m

t he j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t i s t hat t he 1990 w

i l l w a s not pr ocur ed t h r ough t he undue i n f l uenc e of t h e P r oponent and t hat t he 1993 codi c i l i s not t he v a l i d t e s t a m ent a r y docum ent of M

s . Por t e r for so

m e re a s on. W e a r e of t he opi n i on t hat , i n or der t o do com p l e t e j u s t i c e , t h i s ca s e m u s t be r e m

ande d t o t he pr obat e c our t under t he a u t hor i t yof T. C . A . § 27- 3 - 128 (1980), w h i ch pr o v i des as f ollow s :15 T he c our t s ha ll a l s o , in a ll c a s e s , w

he r e , in i t s opi n i on, com

p l e t e j u s t i c e ca nnot be ha d b yr e a s on of s o m

e de f e c t i n t he r e c o r d , w ant o f pr oper par t i e s , or ov e r s i ght w i t hout cul pab l e negl i gence, rem and t he cau

se t o t h e cour t bel o w

f o r f u r t her pr oce edi ngs , w i t h p r oper di r e c t i ons t o ef f e c t uat e t he obj e c t s o f t he or der , and upon s uch t e r m s as m a y be deem ed ri ght . The r e c o r d bef o r e us s i m p l ydoes not cont a i n s u f f i c i ent i n f o r m a t i on r e l e v ant t o t he que s t i on of w het her t he Pr oponent p r opounded t hes e t e s t a m ent a r ydocum

ent s , par t i cul a r l yt he 1993 codi c i l , i n good f a i t h . Thi s def e c t i n t he r e c o r d pr e v ent s us f r o m pr oper l yex e r c i s i ng our appe l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i on. O n r e m and, t he pr obat e c our t m u s t det e r m

i ne t h e c r i t i c a l i s s ue of w het her t he Pr oponent ac t ed i n good f a i t h i n t he w ill c o nt e s t c a s e . In thi s c o nne c tion, it m us t de c i de , i f pos s i b l e , the follow i ng : ( 1 ) the is s ue s in the w ill c o nt e s t c a s e ; (2) t he ba s i s of t he j u r y ’ s f i ndi ng t hat t he 1993 codi c i l i s i n v a l i d , w

hen v i ewed i n t he c ont e x t of t he i s s ues m ade i n t hat c a s e ; a nd

( 3 ) the im

pa c t of the jur yv e r di c t in the w ill c o nt e s t c a s e upon t he At t o r ney s ’ f e e appl i c a t i on, be t hat i m pac t f a v o r abl e or unf a v o r abl e . W e ha s t en t o add t hat w e a r e not o r de r i ngar e -tr i a l of the w ill c o nt e s t. T

ha t w e obv i ous l y c a nnot do. The j udgm ent i n t hat ca s e i s f i nal and i t i s res j udi cat aas t o t he i s s ues i n t hat case; ho w ever , t he i s s ue o f good f a i t h i s s t i l l an ope n i s s ue on t he r e c o r d now bef o r e us . T ha t c r itic a l is s ue is for the pr ob a t e c our t’s de t e r m i na tion

o n r e m and. The pr obat e c our t s houl d s e e k t o as c e r t a i n , bas ed upon a m o r e c o m

pl e t e r e c o r d , the ba s i s for the jur y ’ s findi ngtha t the 1993 codi c i l i s i n v a l i d and t he e f f e c t of t h i s f i ndi ng on t he f e e4 I f , as appears f rom t he incom

plet e record before us, t he 1 9 90 w i l l w a s propounde d and def ended i n good f a i t h , t he At t orne y s w oul d be ent i t l ed t o t heir f ees and expenses i ncurred i n co n nect i o n w i t h the 1990 w

i l l , regardl ess of t he b asi s of t he jury ’ s ver dict w i t h respect t o the 1993 co dici l . H o w ever, i f t he j ury ’ s v e r d i c t w i t h re spe c t t o t he 1993 codi c i l i s s uch as t o per sua d e t he pr obat e cour t t hat t he codi c i l w a s propounde d and def ended i n bad f a i t h , t he probate court w i l l have t o app o r t i o n, i n som e equi t able f ashi o n, serv i ces per f orm

ed by t he At t orne y s - - suc h as cour t t i m e - - t hat i m

pact ed t h e propoundi ng and de f ens e of bot h i nst rum ent s . 16 and e xpe n s e a ppl i c a t i on of t he At t o r ney s . For ex a m p l e , i f t h e j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t , w hen r e a d i n t ande m w i t h t he pl e a d i ngs i n t h e w i l l cont e s t or , i n t he a b s enc e of pl e a d i ngs , i n conne c t i on w i t h , t he is s ue s tr i e d

in tha t litiga tion, c l e a r l yr e fle c t s tha t the j u r yf ound t hat t he Pr oponent f o r g e d t he 1993 codi c i l , t hen i t w oul d f o l l o w

t hat t he Pr oponent di d not pr opound t he c odi c i l i n good f a i t h . Suc h a f i ndi ng woul d t hen r equi r e a r e v i ew of t h e A t t orneys’ f ee and expen se appl i cat i o n

t o d e t erm i ne, as f ar as pos s i b l e , w

hat por t i on of t he At t o r ney s ’ s e r v i c e s w e r e r ende r e d i n conne c t i on w

i t h t he Pr oponent ’ s bad f a i t h at t e m p t t o pr opound and de f end t he 1993 codi c i l . Suc h f e e s and e xpe n s e s w oul d not be cha r g e abl e a g a i n s t t he Es t a t e . The pr obat e c our t w oul d t hen ha v e t o exci se t h o

se f ees and expen ses f rom

t he ap

p l i cat i o n

and det erm i ne w h i ch o f t he rem

a i n i ng ch

arges are appropri a t e charges agai nst t he E

s t a t e . I t i s cl ear f rom

t he record

bef ore us t hat t h e A t t o r ney s ex pende d a c ons i der abl e a m ount of t i m

e i n t hei r r epr e s ent a t i on of M r . H a r v e y ; t he Cont e s t ant s adm i t as m

uch. I t i s al s o cl e a r t hat m uch of t h i s w

o r k w a s unr e l a t ed t o t h e p r opoundi ng a nd def ens e of t he 1993 codi c i l , w h i ch, i t m

u s t be r e m e m ber ed, i s t he onl yi n s t r u m ent i n v a l i dat ed by t he j u r yi n t h e w ill c o nt e s t c a s e . 4W ha t is not c l e a r a t the pr e s e nt tim e is the17

quant u m

of t hei r w

o r k t hat i s pr oper l ycha r g e abl e a g a i n s t t h e E s t a t e . Suc h a de t e r m i nat i on i s f o r t he pr obat e c our t on r e m and. The Cour t s t r ongl ys ugg e s t s t o t he pa r t i e s t hat t hey arr ange f or a cou r t report er t o b

e present at t he h eari ng o

n r e m and. W

e e ncour a g e t he pr obat e c our t t o m ake det a i l ed f i ndi ngs f ollow i ngthe he a r i ng . I V . Conc l us i on The j udgm

ent of t he pr obat e c our t i s v a c a t ed a nd t h i s c a s e i s r e m

ande d f o r f u r t her det e r m i nat i ons cons i s t ent w i t h t h i s opi n i on. Cos t s on appea l ar e t a x ed 50% t o t he a ppel l ant s and 50% t o t he ap

pel l ees.

__________________________ Char l e s D

. Sus ano, J r . , J . CONCUR:

________________________ H ous t on M

. Goddar d , P. J .

________________________ D . M i chael Sw

i ney, J .