1

F ILED

Ma rch 30, 2000

Cecil Cro ws on , Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COU RT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVI L L E

I N RE: ) E1999- 00194- C OA - R3- C V

ESTATE OF L I L L I E MA E )

P ORTER. )

 )

 )

 )

 ) APPEAL AS OF RI G HT FROM THE

 ) L OU DON COU NTY PROBATE COU RT

 )

APPLI CATI ON OF ATTORNEYS )

MARY KATHERI NE LON GWORTH )

and PEGGY J . S . MON GER, FOR )

FEES AND EXPENSES, )

 ) HONORA BLE WI LLI A M H. RUSSELL,

Appl i c a n t s - Appel l ant s . ) J U DG 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 Wheel e r

MARY KATHERI NE LON GWORTH J ESS D. CAMPBELL

PE GGY J . S . MONGER Campbel l & Dawson

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 MER, J R.

 Knoxv i l l e , Tenne s s e e

O P I N I O N
2

VACATED AND REMANDE 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 expenses of at t orneys Mary Kat heri ne Longwort h and Peggy

J . S . Mo nger (“t he At t orneys”) ari s i ng ou t of t hei r r epresent a t i o n

o f T h oma s S . Ha r v e y , th e fo r me r e x e c u t o r o f th e E s t a t e o f L illie

Mae Por t er (“t he Es t a t e”). Be i ng di s s a t i s f i ed wi t h t he probat e

cour t ’ s award, t he At t orneys app eal ed. For t he reason s s t a t e d

herei n , we vacat e t he j u dg ment of t he l o wer court and remand f o r

f u r t her pr oce edi ngs .

We are f aced wi t h a di sput e regar d i ng at t orney’ s f ees

and e xpe n s e s al l e g edl y i ncur r ed i n conne c t i on wi t h t h e

a dmi n i s t r a tio n o f th e E s t a t e . Ms . P o r t e r ’ s 1 9 9 0 will a p p o i n t e d

a t t o r ney Edwi 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 wi l l r e mo v ed Ar nol d as ex e c u t o r and de s i gna t ed Ms .

Por t e r ’ s s on, Thoma s S. Ha 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 emp 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 wo l awsui t s , one i n ci r cui t cour t and one i n

cha nce r y cour t , and many 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 y and e f f i c a c y of t e s t a ment a r y document s

a lle g e d l y s i g n e d b y Ms . P o r t e r . Ultima t e l y , a ju r y in c i r c u i t

cour t f ound t he 1990 wi l l v a l i d , but det e r mi ned t hat t he 1993

codi c i l wa s i n v a l i d . The Pr oponent wa s r e mo 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 admi n i s t e r t he Es t a t e .

When t he At t o r ney s mo 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 expenses f rom t he Es t a t e , bene f i c i ari es under t h e
1

Ted L. Po r t er and Sh i r l ey Port er Wheeler are al so ben e f i c i ari es und e r

t he 1 9 9 3 co dici l .

2

Duri 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

was subst i t uted i n h i s pl ace.

3

1990 wi l l

1

 - - Ted L . Por t e r , Shi r l e y Por t e r Whee l e r , and J ohn

Ker l e y , who ar e t he t wo s t epc h i l d r en a nd br o t her r e s pec t i v e l y of

Ms . Por t er (col l ect i vel y “t he Co nt est ant s”) - - obj 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, wh i ch i s onl y a por t i on of t he r eque s t e d

a mount , and t a x ed ha l f of t he a wa 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 n g wh a t a r e e s s e n tia lly two is s u e s :

1 . Di d th e p r o b a t e c o u r t e r r in fa ilin g to

a ward t he At t orneys t hei r ent i re cl a i m of

$41, 986?

2 . Di d t he pr obat e c our t er r i n t a x i ng onl y

h a lf o f th e a wa r d to th e E s t a t e ?

T he appe l l ees, Ted L. Por t er, Shi r l ey Port er Wheel er, and t h e

E s t a t e of J ohn Ker l e y ,

2

 r a i s e a n i s s ue on a ppea l , ques t i oni n g

whet her t he At t orneys can p ursue a d i rect cl a i m agai nst t h e

E s t a t e .

I. Backgr ound

On Se p t e mber 14, 1990, Ms . Por t e r pur por t edl y ex e c u t e d

her l a s t wi l l and t e s t a ment . The wi l l wa s pr epa r ed by a L oudon,

Tennessee, l a w f i r m. When proba t ed, i t was accompani ed by an

a ffid a v it o f a tte s t a tio n p r e p a r e d c o n t e mp o r a n e o u s l y with th e

wi l l . Under t he pr o v i s i ons of t he 1990 wi l l , t he Pr oponent wa s
4

t o recei ve cer t a i n real propert y , and t he rema i n der of t he Es t a t e

wa s t o be di v i ded a s f o l l o ws : 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 Whee l e r ; 25% t o J ohn Ker l e y ; and

2 . 5 % ea ch t o Ms . 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 Edwi n H. Ar nol d wa 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 wi l l .

On Sept e mber 9, 199 3, Ms . Por t er al l egedl y execut ed a

codi c i l t o t he 1990 wi 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 y t o t he Pr oponent , but does

modi f y t he di v i s i on of t he r e ma 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 Whee 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 mi nat ed. The codi c i l does not change 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 Es t a t e . The codi c i l was al so accompani ed by an

a ffid a v it o f a tte s t a tio n b y th e witn e s s e s to th a t in s t r ume n t .

Ms . Por t e r di ed i n Nove mber , 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 wi 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 ment s . On Apr i l 20, 1995, t he Pr obat e Cour t ce r t i f i e d

t h e will c o n t e s t to c i r c u it c o u r t fo r tr i a l .

I nitia lly , th e P r o p o n e n t r e t a i n e d th e s e r v i c e s o f

a t t o r ney Pet e r Al l i man. The Pr oponent t hen r e t a i ned a t t o r ney

J ame s Ha r v e y S t u tts fo r a b r i e f p e r i o d o f time . T h e c l a i ma n t s

now bef o r e us f i r s t me t wi t h t he Pr oponent on or about Apr i l 26,
5

1995. They we 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 y 10, 1995.

Wh ile it is n o t e n tir e l y c l e a r in th e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s ,

it a p p e a r s th a t th e C o n t e s t a n t s r a i s e d th r e e is s u e s in th e will

cont e s t : (1) whet her t he 1990 wi l l wa s i n v a l i d due t o undue

i n f l uenc e a nd whet her Ms . 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) whet her a pr i o r wi 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 we r e l o s t or s pol i a t e d

t e s t a ment a r y document 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 by Ms . Por t e r and he r l a t e hus band were

mu t ual and c ont r a c t ual , t her eby r ende r i ng Ms . Por t e r ’ s 1990 wi l l

a n d 1 9 9 3 c o d i c il in v a lid . S i n c e , th e la tte r two is s u e s a r e

i n a p p r o p r i a t e fo r a will c o n t e s t in c i r c u it c o u r t, two o f th e

C on t est ant s f i l ed sui t regar d i ng t hese ma t t ers i n chancery cou r t

i n Nove mber , 1995. I n addi t i on t o s u i ng t he Es t a t e , t h e

p l a i n tiffs in th a t a c tio n s u e d th e P r o p o n e n t p e r s o n a lly , a lle g i n g

t hat t he Pr oponent ca u s ed Ms . 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 o f d e p o s it s h o r tly b e f o r e h e r d e a t h , th e r e b y

d i mi n i s h i n g th e a s s e t s o f th e E s t a t e . T h e will c o n t e s t in

c i r cui t cour t wa s pos t poned pendi ng t he out come of t he c a s e i n

chancery cour t .

I n t he c hanc e r y cour t s u i t , t he Pr oponent def ende d

h i ms e l f i ndi v i dual l y and 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 Es t a t e . The sui t agai nst t h e

P r oponent i ndi v i dual l y wa s v o l unt a r i l y di s mi s s ed. The Chanc e l l o r

d i s mi s s e d th e p l a i n tiffs ’ c l a i ms a g a i n s t th e E s t a t e a t th e c l o s e

o f th e i r p r o o f, fin d i n g th a t th e y fa ile d to e s t a b lis h a lo s t o r
6

s p o lia t e d will a n d th a t th e y h a d fa ile d to e s t a b lis h th e

exi s t ence of a cont ract bet ween Ms . Por t er and her l a t e husband.

Thi s dec i s i on wa s af f i r med by t h i s Cour t , and t he S upr e me Cour t

deni ed pe r mi s s i on t o appe a l .

Upon concl u s i on of t he c hanc e r y cour t ac t i on, t he wi l l

cont e s t ca s e mo v ed f o r wa 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 Ho wa r d Wi l s on, t he t wo wi t nes s e s

t o t he e x e cut i on of Ms . 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 who 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 document exami ner

who wa s ex pec t ed t o t e s t i f y t hat t he s i gna t u r e on t he 1993

c o d i c il wa s th a t o f Ms . P o 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 mi nat ed t he s e r v i c e s of t he At t o r ney s on or about

De c e mber 15, 1997, and t he At t o r ney s wi t hdr ew f r o m t he wi l l

cont e s t ca s e on F ebr uar y 12, 1998. The Pr oponent pr oce ede d i n

t h a t litig a tio n with o u t th e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l. T h e ju r y

f ound t hat t he 1990 wi l l wa s v a l i d , but hel d t hat t he 1993

codi c i l wa s i n v a l i d . The c our t t hen e n t e r ed a j udgment on Ma 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 wi l l v a l i d . Acc o r d i ngl y , t h e

P r oponent wa s r e mo v ed a s ex e c u t o r of t he Es t a t e a nd Ar nol d wa s

appoi n t ed i n hi s pl a c e .

On Oc t ober 23, 1998, t he At t o r ney s f i l ed a “Mo 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 mo t i on, t hey at t a c hed a n
3

T h e other hal f was t axed to t he P ropo nen t i n d i v i d u a l l y ; ho wever, i t i s

not cl ear f rom t he r ecor d whet her t he Pr oponent wa s se r v ed wi t h a copy of t h e

A t t orne y s ’ mo t i on. I n any ev ent , t h i s por t i on of t he cour t ’ s j udgment i s not

a t i ssue on thi s appeal. Ho wever, i f t he P ropo nen t was not properl y made a

par t y t o t he f ee a ppl i cat i on proc eedi ng, we 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 mi zed st a t e ment of ser v i ces r endered and expenses . The

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 expenses .

A hea r i ng was hel d i n Pr obat e Cour t on De c e mber 17,

1998. On 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 amount t o t he Es t a t e . 3 The c our t

ma d e n o s p e c ific fin d i n g s 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 ment of t he Ev i denc e on J u l y 23, 1999.

T he St a t e ment ref l ect s 17 pi eces of evi dence, i ncl u di 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 y cour t ca s e ,

t h e fin a l ju d g me n t in th e will c o n t e s t c a s e , th e 1 9 9 3 c o d i c il a n d

a c c omp a n y i n g a ffid a v it o f a tte s t a tio n , a n d th e b r i e f file d b y th e

A t t orneys i n t he earl i er appeal .

Acc o r d i ng t o t he S t a t e ment of t he Ev i denc e , t h e

depos i t i ons of Vel v a Wi l s on, Ho wa r d Wi l s on, and S a m J ones we r e

o f f ered i n t o evi dence at t he heari ng on t he At t orneys’ f ee and

expense r equest and were accept ed as such by t he court wi t h ou t

o b j e c tio n fr om th e C o n t e s t a n t s . A d d itio n a lly , th e S t a t e me n t o f

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 , wh 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 onsi b l e f or t he f ees and expenses , agreed t hat t he sums

r eque s t ed by t he At t o r ney s we r e r e a s onabl e .
8

On J u l y 30, 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 ment of t he Ev i denc e . They

ass ert ed (1) t hat i t was i mproper t o i ncl u de 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 y r a t e was r e a s onabl e a nd di d not ques t i o n

t he number of hour s ac t ual l y ex pende d , t hey di d cont end t hat many

o f t hes e e xpe nded hour s we 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 endered by t he At t orneys were pri mari 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 ment of t hes e

f e e s . On Se p t e mber 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 ment of t he Ev i denc e a s s ubmi t t ed by t he At t o r ney s wa 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 ums t a n c e s , th e d e t e r mi n a tio n o f th e tr i a l c o u r t [ a s to th e

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 y ca s e , our r e v i ew i s de novo upon t h e

r e c o r d . Rul e 13( d), T. R . A . P . ; Wright v . C ity of Knoxv ille , 898

S . W. 2d 177, 181 (Tenn. 1995); Uni on Carbi de Cor p. v. Huddl es t on,

854 S. W. 2d 87, 91 (Te nn. 1993). Beca u s e t he pr obat e c our t made

n o s p e c ific fin d i n g s o f fa c t, th e r e is n o t h i n g in th i s r e c o r d to

wh i ch t he pr e s u mp t i on of cor r e c t nes s ca n at t a c h . See Ke l l y v.

Ke lly , 679 S. W. 2d 458, 460 (Tenn. C t . App. 1984). Thus , on our d e

nov o r e v i e w, we mu s t a s c e r t a i n , if a t a ll p o s s i b l e , wh a t fa c t s
9

a r e s uppor t ed by t he pr eponde r anc e of t he e v i denc e . Ga nzevoor t

v . Rus s e l l , 949 S. W. 2d 293, 296 (Tenn. 1997).

III. Anal y s i s

A .

Before add ressing t h e issues raised b y t h e At t o r n eys,

we mu s t fir s t a n a l y z e th e is s u e r a i s e d b y th e C o n t e s t a n t s , i.e. ,

whet her t he At t orneys can p ursue a d i rect cl a i m agai nst t h e

Est a t e f or f ees and expenses al l egedl y ear ned and i ncur 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 y as ex e c u t o r .

The Cont e s t ant s r e l y upon T. C . A . § 30- 2 - 606 (1984),

wh i ch pr o v i des as f o l l o ws :

T he cl erk shal l charge every such acc o un t i n g

par t y wi t h al l s uch s u ms of money as he ha s

recei ved, or mi ght have recei ved by usi ng du e

and reas o nabl e di l i gence, and shal l credi t

h i m wi t h a r e a s onabl e c o mpens a t i on f o r hi s

services, an d wi t h su c h d i s b u rseme nt s as he

s uppor t s by l 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 re Estat e of

Wallac e, 829 S. W. 2d 696 (Tenn. C t . App. 1992). I n I n re Estat e of

Wallac e, we s a i d th a t

“[w]hen [executors ] ret a i n cou nsel , t hey are

p e r s o n a lly lia b l e fo r th e fe e s u n til a c o u r t

det ermi nes t hat t he serv i ces were r equi red

and t hat t he f ee was r easonabl e . I f a cour t

approves t he f ee, t he execut or may charge i t

back agai nst t he est a t e as one o f t he cos t s
10

o f admi n i s t r a t i on under [T. C . A . § 30- 2 - 606]. ” 

I d. a t 7 0 3 ( c itin g S t ate ex rel Da hl berg v.

American Sur . Co. , 121 S. W. 2d 546 (Tenn.

1938)) . Es t a t e f unds ma y onl y be us ed t o pay

f or l egal f ees i f (1) t he serv i ces were

requi red; (2) t he serv i ces were f or t h e

b e n e fit o f th e e s t a t e r a t h e r th a n fo r th e

bene f i t of one or mo 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 mount of t he r eque s t e d

f ee i s r easonabl e . I d. “ Re q u i r i n g th e

execut or t o request t hat l egal f ees be pai d

f rom t he est a t e i s more t han a procedural

t e c h n i c a lity . It r e c o g n i z e s th a t th e

e x e c u t o r is , in th e fir s t in s t a n c e , lia b l e

f o r th e fe e s a n d th a t th e e s t a t e is o n l y

secondari l y l i abl e . I t al so recogn i zes t hat

b y r 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 execut or cert i f i es t hat t he f ees

we 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 nabl e . ” I d. at 704.

We do not ques t i on t he a u t hor i t y of 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 re Estat e of Wallac 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 who 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 .

Ho wever , we do not 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 . He r e , f o r unknown

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 make

ma tte r s wo r s e fo r h i m, h e d e f e n d e d h i ms e lf in th e will c o n t e s t

c a s e . He wa s n o t s u c c e s s f u l. A ll o f th i s h i s t o r y is c a l c u l a t e d

t o pr oduce l e s s t han f r i endl y f e e l i ngs t o wa r d t he At t o r ney s i n

t he mi nd of t he Pr oponent . Under t he uni que c i r cums t anc e s of

t h i s c a s e , we b e lie v e it is a p p r o p r i a t e fo r th e A tto r n e y s to

p ur s ue t hei r appl i cat i o n f or f ees and expenses 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 make 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 mony on 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 me 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 he At t orneys have rai sed what are es sent i a l l y t wo

i s s ues : (1) whet 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 y hal f of t he a wa r d t o t h e

E s t a t e . T h e A tto r n e y s a r g u e th a t th e y a r e e n title d to th e e n tir e

a mount 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 to t o . The Con t est ant s ar gue t hat t he f ees and expenses 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

because t hey were r endered excl usi vel y f or t he benef i t of t h e

P r oponent i ndi v i dual l y .

The f o l l o wi 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: One wh o i s named as an execut or i n a wi l l has a l egal dut y

“ t o of f er t he wi l l f or proba t e and t o t ake t he necess ary st eps,

i ncl udi ng t he e mp l o y ment of couns e l , t o r e s i s t a c ont e s t and t o

s u s t a i n th e will....” I n re Es t at e of Tayl or , 388 S. W. 2d 657,

660 (Te nn. C t . App. 1963). One who f u l f i l l s t h i s dut y i n good

f a ith is e n title d to c o s t s a n d a tto r n e y ’ s fe e s . S mith v . Haire,

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

u ltima t e l y fo u n d to b e in v a lid . I d. An at t o r ney who has

a s s i s t ed a n ex e c u t o r who 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 expenses 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 mi nat i on of t he r e a s onabl ene s s of f e e s and

expenses request ed by an execu t or i s general l y wi t h i n t h e

d i s c r e tio n o f th e tr i a l c o u r t, I n re Estat e of Wallac e, 829
12

S . W. 2d at 700- 01, and “ mu s t be made i n l i ght of al l t he r e l e v ant

c i rcums t ances, i ncl u di ng t he ext ent of t he execut or’ s

r e s p o n s i b ilitie s , th e n a t u r e o f th e s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d , th e

p r o mp 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

bene 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 who i s t h e

p r i ma r y bene f i c i a r y of 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 by f r aud or undue i n f l uenc e i s not ent i t l ed t o

c os t s o r f e es . Hai r e , 181 S. W. at 162 . Ho wever , “a case ma y

a r i s e i n wh i ch t he j u r y woul 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 by t h e

cour t , and yet t here mi ght be i n such a case ci rcums t ances t hat

wo u l d ju s tify th e a tte mp t e d p r o b a t e o f th e will 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 wi t h t he pr opoundi ng a nd def endi ng of t he 1990 wi l l

and 1993 codi c i l , t he que s t i on t hat mu s t be de c i ded i s whet her

execut or Harv ey was act i ng i n goo d f a i t h when he at t e mp t ed t o

p r obat e t hes e t wo i n s t r u ment s and t her e a f t e r def ende d t hei r

v a lid ity in th e will c o n t e s t c a s e . Re g r e tta b l y , we a r e u n a b l e ,

on t he r e c o r d bef o r e us , t o make t h i s det e r mi nat i on wi 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 expenses was not t ranscr i bed, we may onl y consi der as

e v i denc e i n t h i s ca s e t hat wh i ch i s cont a i ned i n t he At t o r ney s ’

S t a t e ment of t he Ev i denc e whi ch was appr o v ed by t he pr obat e
13

cour t . The g r ound upon wh i ch t he j u r y i n t he wi l l cont e s t f ound

t h e c o d i c il to b e in v a lid is p a r tic u l a r l y r e l e v a n t to th e

ques t i on of whet 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 y t wo document s i n t he S t a t e ment of t h e

E v i denc e t hat ev en r e mo t e l y addr e s s t h i s ques t i on. One i s none v i d e n tia r y in n a t u r e . T h a t is th e E s t a t e ’ s b r i e f in th e a p p e a l

o f th e c h a n c e r y c o u r t s u it. It me n tio n s , in p a s s i n g , th a t two o f

t he Cont e s t ant s “c l a i med, among ot her t h i ngs , t hat t he Codi c i l

wa s a f o r g e r y and t hat t he Wi l l wa 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 u d g me n t in th e will c o n t e s t s t a t e s th a t th e ju r y fo u n d a s

f o llo ws :

1 . T h e L a s t Will a n d T e s t a me n t o f L illie

Por t e r dat ed S ept e mber 14, 1990. . . i s t h e

v a lid Will o f th e s a i d L illie P o r t e r .

2 . The Codi c i l t o t he L a s t Wi l l and Te s t a ment

o f L illie P o r t e r d a t e d S e p t e mb e r 9 , 1 9 9 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 y abs 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 p l eadi ngs, det a i l i ng t he preci se i s s ues t hat were

litig a t e d in th e will c o n t e s t c a s e . Wa s th e a lle g e d u n d u e

i n f l uenc e of t he Pr oponent onl y cha r g e d wi t h r e s pec t t o t he 1990

wi l l and not as t o t he 1993 codi c i l ? I f t he 1993 codi c i l wa s

f o r g e d , who al l e g edl y f o r g e d i t ? Wa s t he f o r g e r y t he work of t h e

P r oponent or wa s i t done by anot her wi t hout t he Pr oponent ’ s

k no wl edge? Th ese quest i o ns al l have a b eari ng on t he l egal

e ffe c t o f th e ju d g me n t in th e will c o n t e s t c a s e o n th e in s t a n t

c a s e . Ther e a r e no de f i n i t i v e a n s we r s t o t he que s t i ons pos ed - -

ques t i ons t hat obv i ous l y bea r upon t he i s s ue of whet her t h e
14

P r oponent pr opounded and de f ende d t hes e i n s t r u ment s i n good

f a ith . 

Speci f i cal l y , t he St a t e ment of t he Ev i dence does 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 whet her t he j u r y i n

t he wi l l cont e s t f ound t hat t he Pr oponent wr ongf u l l y pr 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 , howe 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 y document 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 h e will c o n t e s t we r e , i nt e r alia , ( 1 ) wh e t h e r th e will wa 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 )

whet her t he c odi c i l wa s f o r g e d by s o meone who i s ot her wi s e

uni dent i f i ed. Addi t i onal l y , many of t he Cont e s t ant s ’ ar gument s

s e e m t o be pr e mi s ed upon t he a s s u mp t i on t hat t he j u r y f ound t hat

t he Pr oponent wa s s o mehow i n v o l v ed i n t he c i r cums t anc e s

s u r r oundi ng t he i n v a l i d i t y of t he 1993 codi c i l . Ther e i s ,

howe v e r , no evi denc e r e fle c tin g th a t th e ju r y , e ith e r e x p r e s s l y

o r by cl e a r i mp 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 wi s e wrongf u l l y pr ocur ed i t s ex e c u t i on. Wi t hout

mo r e , t he mo s t we c an now deduc 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 wi l l wa 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 ment a r y

document of Ms . Por t e r for some re a s o n.

We a r e of t he opi n i on t hat , i n or der t o do comp l e t e

j u s t i c e , t h i s ca s e mu s t be r e mande d t o t he pr obat e c our t under

t he a u t hor i t y of T. C . A . § 27- 3 - 128 (1980), wh i ch pr o v i des as

f o llo ws :
15

T h e c o u r t s h a ll a l s o , in a ll c a s e s , wh e r e , in

i t s opi n i on, comp l e t e j u s t i c e ca nnot be ha d

b y r e a s on of s o me de f e c t i n t he r e c o r d , want

o f pr oper par t i e s , or ov e r s i ght wi t hout

cul pabl e negl i gence, remand t he cause t o t h e

cour t bel o w f o r f u r t her pr oce edi ngs , wi 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 ms as ma y be

deemed ri ght .

The r e c o r d bef o r e us s i mp l y does not cont a i n s u f f i c i ent

i n f o r ma t i on r e l e v ant t o t he que s t i on of whet her t he Pr oponent

p r opounded t hes e t e s t a ment a r y document s , par t i cul a r l y t 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 y ex 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.

On r e mand, t he pr obat e c our t mu s t det e r mi ne t h e

c r i t i c a l i s s ue of whet her t he Pr oponent ac t ed i n good f a i t h i n

t h e will c o n t e s t c a s e . In th i s c o n n e c tio n , it mu s t d e c i d e , i f

pos s i b l e , th e fo llo wi n g : ( 1 ) th e is s u e s in th e will c o n t 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 , when v i ewed i n t he c ont e x t of t he i s s ues made i n t hat

c a s e ; a n d ( 3 ) th e imp a c t o f th e ju r y v e r d i c t in th e will c o n t 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 mpac t

f a v o r abl e or unf a v o r abl e . We ha s t en t o add t hat we a r e not

o r d e r i n g a r e -tr i a l o f th e will c o n t e s t. T h a t we o b v i o u s l y

c a nnot do. The j udgment i n t hat ca s e i s f i nal and i t i s res

j udi cat a as t o t he i s s ues i n t hat case; however , t he i s s ue of

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 h a t c r itic a l is s u e is fo r th e p r o b a t e c o u r t’s d e t e r mi n a tio n o n

r e mand. 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

mo r e c omp l e t e r e c o r d , th e b a s i s fo r th e ju r y ’ s fin d i n g th a t th e

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 e
4

I f , as appears f rom t he incomplet e record before us, t he 1 9 9 0 wi l l wa s

propounde d and def ended i n good f a i t h , t he At t orne y s woul d be ent i t l ed t o

t heir f ees and exp enses i ncu rred i n co n n ect i o n wi t h the 199 0 wi l l , regardl ess

of t he b asi s of t he jury ’ s ver dict wi t h respect t o the 199 3 co dici l . Ho wever,

i f t he j ury ’ s v e r d i c t wi 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 wa s propounde d and def ended i n bad f a i t h ,

t he p robate court wi l l have t o ap p o r t i o n , i n some equ i t able f ashi o n , serv i ces

per f ormed by t he At t orne y s - - suc h as cour t t i me - - t hat i mpact ed t h e

propoundi ng and de f ens e of bot h i nst rument 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 mp l e , i f t h e

j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t , when r e a d i n t ande m wi t h t he pl e a d i ngs i n t h e

wi 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 wi t h ,

t h e is s u e s tr i e d in th a t litig a tio n , c l e a r l y r e fle c t s th a t th e

j u r y f ound t hat t he Pr oponent f o r g e d t he 1993 codi c i l , t hen i t

woul 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 expense appl i cat i o n t o de t ermi ne, as f ar as

pos s i b l e , what por t i on of t he At t o r ney s ’ s e r v i c e s we r e r ende r e d

i n conne c t i on wi t h t he Pr oponent ’ s bad f a i t h at t e mp 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 woul 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 woul d t hen ha v e

t o exci se t h ose f ees and expenses f rom t he app l i cat i o n and

det ermi ne wh i ch of t he rema i n i ng charges are appro pri a t e charges

agai nst t he Es 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 mount of t i me i n t hei r

r epr e s ent a t i on of Mr . Ha r v e y ; t he Cont e s t ant s admi t as much. I t

i s al s o cl e a r t hat much of t h i s wo r k wa 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 , wh i ch, i t mu s t be

r e me mber ed, i s t he onl y i n s t r u ment i n v a l i dat ed by t he j u r y i n t h e

will c o n t e s t c a s e .

4

 Wh a t is n o t c l e a r a t th e p r e s e n t time is th e
17

quant u m of t hei r wo r k t hat i s pr oper l y cha 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 mi nat i on i s f o r t he pr obat e c our t on r e mand.

The Cour t s t r ongl y s ugg e s t s t o t he pa r t i e s t hat t hey

arr ange f or a cour t report er t o be present at t he heari ng on

r e mand. We e ncour a g e t he pr obat e c our t t o make det a i l ed f i ndi ngs

f o llo wi n g th e h e a r i n g .

I V . Conc l us i on

The j udgment 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 mande d f o r f u r t her det e r mi nat i ons cons i s t ent wi 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 appel l ees.

__________________________

Char l e s D. Sus ano, J r . , J .

CONCUR:

________________________

Hous t on M. Goddar d , P. J .

________________________

D. Mi chael Swi ney, J .