### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A pr il 26, 200 6 S es sio n

I N RE 

### : EST ATE OF SPENCER B ROWN

Circuit Court

for Dickson Cou nty No. CV1290 Allen W. Wallace, Judge

No. M2005- 00864-COA-R 3-CV - F iled on O ctober 27, 2006

W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R

. , P

. J

. , M

. S

. , d i s s en t i n g.

With g re a t r e luc ta nc e , I

mus t pa rt way s w iththe c ou rt

re g ard ing the dis mis sa l of thi s w ill contest. B ased on the fac ts of this case, I have c oncluded that the trial court err ed by dismiss ing the will contest without first disposi ng of Don B rown’s motion to implea d additional parties and Alton Br own’s petition to intervene

. Spe nc e r B ro wn e xec ute d a wi ll i n 1 99 4 w he n h e wa s e ig hty -ei ght y ears old . T his wi ll permitted two of his nephe ws, Don an d Al t o n Br own, to purcha se his farm upon his death. Following a heart attack, Spencer Br own m oved in with his sis ter, Allene Dunnag an, who c are d for him fo r the re st of his lif

e . O n F e br

ua ry 11 , 2 00 0, Spe nc e r B ro wn e xec ute d a ne w w ill le a vin g fi fty perc ent of his estate , including his fa rm, to Ms. Dunnag an w i t h t h e re mainder g oing to his seve n niece s and nephe ws , including D on and Alton B rown. Spenc er B rown died te n day s later on Fe bruary 21, 2000.

Do n B ro wn c on te ste d th e F e br ua ry 11 , 2 00 0 w ill on the g ro un d th a t it wa s the pr od uc t of M s. Dunnag an’s undue influence

. The will contest was tried on Nove mber 19, 2000, a nd the trial court g rante d Ms. Dunnag an a dir ecte d verdic t and upheld the will. This court re verse d the trial court’ s direc ted ver dict and re manded the c ase f or a ne w trial with a rec o m m endation that the tria l court permit other inter ested pa

rties to intervene

. In re Es tate of B ro wn , No. M2002-00141-COA- R3-CV, 2003 WL 21710508, at *8 (Te nn. Ct. App. J uly 24, 2003), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. Dec . 22, 2003).
On September

7, 2004, Don Brown filed a mot ion to amend his petition and to implead other pa rt ie s, inc lud ing Al tonB ro wn . Sh ortly the re a ft er, he fi le d a

mot ionfo r p e rm iss ionto atte mpt to
me diate his dis pu te wi th M s. Du nn a g a n. On Oc tob e r 2 5, 20 04 , A lto n B row n fil e d a mot ionto intervene to contest the F ebrua ry 11, 2000 will. I n the meantime, Ms. D unnag an and Don B rown resolved their differ ence s. On Dec ember 29, 2004, without disposi ng of the pe nding motions, the tr ia l c ou rt fi led a n a g re e d o rd e r p re pa re d b y Do n B ro wn a ndMs. Du nn a g a n d ism iss ing the wi ll contest.-2-

Al tonB ro wn qu ic kly

fi le d a mot ion to stay the e ntry of the or de r dis mis sin g the wi ll c on te st and a motion to set the orde r aside. O n J anuary 28, 2005, he filed a

proposed inter vening petition that should ha ve acc ompanied his e arlier motion to i nterve ne. F ollowing a hearing on January

28, 2005, the trial court enter ed an order on Fe bruary 24, 2005, dismiss ing a ll of Alton Brow n’s pending motions.

Th e abil ity to make te stame nta ry dis po sit ion s of pr op e rty is a fu nd a me nta l rig ht. Th e c ou rt s of this state vig orously

protec t this right and strive to honor and ca rry out the desires of testators by rig orously

enfor cing wills accor ding to their plain terms and by providing proce eding s to assure that testamentary

intent has not been ta inted by lack of testamentary

capa city or undue influe nce.

Th is c a se raise s th e sp e c te r o f s e lf -d e a lin g . It st art e d w he n D on B ro wn ass ert ed th at Ms. Dunnag an had used undue influe nce to pr ocure Spencer Br own’s F ebrua

ry 11, 2000 will. Even though the trial co urt dismissed Don Brow n’s ca se on direc ted ver dict, this court determined that Don B rown ha d prese nted s ufficie nt evidenc e to require a jury to decide w hether

Ms. Dunnag an had

e xerte d u nd ue inf

lue nc e on Spe nc e r B ro wn a ndre ma nd e d th e c a se fo r ano the r t ri a l.

There has, howe ver, be en no trial on the questi on of whether Ms. Dunnag an exerted undue influence on Spencer

Br own. There was no trial be cause Don B rown a nd Ms. Dunnag an have

rea ched a private acc ommodation that may – or may not – be consistent with Spencer Br own’s ac tual desires. The trial court, who appar ently did not think much of the will contest to beg in with, allowed Don B rown a nd Ms. Dunnag an to s ettle t he ca se eve n though another plainly interested pa

rty , Alton Br own, was pr epar ed to proc eed w ith the contest.

This rec ord conta ins no ex planation re g arding the trial court’s r easons f or ente ring an orde r dismiss ing the will contest when the c ase f ile contained two pe nding unr esolved motions reque sting the i nte r v e n ti o n o f

o th e r in te r e s te d p ar ti e s

. I t s e e ms to meth a t th e s e mo ti o n s s h o u ldh a v e b een addre ssed bef

ore c onsidering whether

the will contest shoul d be dismissed based on an ag ree ment be tw e e n tw o, a ndon ly

tw o, of the int e re ste d p art ie s.

This court’s de cision appea rs to be hea vily

influence d by

its concern that Alton Brow n has sle pt o n h is ri g hts a nd by Al ton B ro wn ’s failu reto f ilea pr op os e d p e tit iona lon g wi th h is m oti on to intervene as re quired by

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24.03. On this recor d, I am not prepa

red to find that Alton B ro wn ha s b e e n d i l a t o r y b e c au s e h e , l i k e S p e n c e r B r o w n ’ s o t h e r

n i e c e s a n d n e p h e w s , c ou ld

re a so na bly ha ve be lie ve d tha t Don B ro wn wa s ac tin g c on sis te ntl y wi th the ir int e re sts – at le a st u nti l he made a deal with Ms. Dunnag an. Similarly , Alton Brow n’s lawy er’ s failure to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24.03 was cure d beca use the require d petition wa s on file by the time the trial court got around to c onsidering Alton Brow n’s motion to int erve ne. B y that time, however
, the trial court ha d

a lr e a dy dis mis se d th e c a se a ndwa s p la inl y dis inc lin e d to re ins ta te it.
Our solemn oblig ation is to honor S pence r Brown’s actual testame ntary desires. This c ourt conclude d in 2003 that sufficie nt c ompetent evidenc e exis ted to que stion whe ther Spencer Br own’s Fe bruary 11, 2000 will actually

ref lected his de sires. De spite the eff orts of Ms. Dunnag an and D on-3-

B ro wn , th a t qu e sti on re ma ins un re so lve d tod a y

. Th e tr ia l c ou rt sh ou ld ha ve g rante d the mot ion s to int e rv e ne , d e c lin e d to dis mis s th e wi ll c on te st b a se d o n th e priv a te a g re e me nt b e tw e e n M s. Du nn a g a n a ndDo n Brown, an d s e t th e c a se fo r t ri a l to e na

ble a jury to d e c ide wh e the r M s. Dunnag an proc ured Spenc er B rown’s F ebrua ry 11, 2000 will using undue influe nce.

____________________________________ WI LL I AM C. K OC H, JR., P. J., M. S.