### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A pr il 26, 200 6 S es sio n
IN TH E EST ATE OF: S PENCER BROW N
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Dickson Coun ty No. CV1290 Allen W. Wallace, Judge

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

Four y ear s after

the contest of his unc le’s will was filed, A lton Brown fi l ed a T en n

. R . Civ. P . 24 Motion to I nterve ne in the contest of his unc le’s will. Themotion, however, w as not ac companied by a pr op os e d p le a din g se tti ng fo rth th e c la im f or wh ic h int e rv e nti on wa s so ug ht a s re qu ir e d by Rul e 24.03. Subsequent to the filing of the motion, an order of dismiss al of the will contest was e ntere d. There afte r, the movant filed his propose d pleading following which the trial court de nied the Motion to Inte rv e ne ba se d up on a fi nd ing themov a nt h a d s le pt o n h is rig hts . F ind ing no e rr or , w e a ff irm. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J ER R Y S C OT T , S R

. J ., joined. W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., filed a dissenting opinion.
David D. Wolfe, Dic kson, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, Alton E. Brow n.

Ernest W. Wi lliams and J ohn D. Schwalb, Franklin, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellee, A llene Dunna g an. Connie Reg uli, Bre ntwood, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellee, D on Br own.

OP IN ION
Spencer Br own died in Fe bruary

of 2000, lea ving a will that he executed a pproxi mately

ten day s befor e his de ath. I n this will , he lef t his estate, which include d his farm, to Allene Dunnag an,
a ndhe le ft

there ma ind e r t o b e div ide d e qu a lly a mon g his se ve n n ie c e s andne ph e ws

.
One of Spencer Br own’s nephe ws, Don B rown filed a will contest on April 19, 2000. Don Br own cha lleng ed his unc le’s 2000 will alleg ing that Allene Dunna g an exerted undueinfluenceover his uncle to persua de him to execute the new will, whic h differ ed signific antly from a will that had be e n e xec ute d inJuly

of 19 94 . T he mos t no ta

bledif fe re nc e wa s th a t pu rs uant to th e prio r w ill , Spencer Br own’s fa

rm was to g o to Don Br own and Alton B rown, not Allene Dunnag an.I n h i s N ot i ce of Ap peal , Al t on B r own appeal ed t he deni al of hi s M ot i on t o Set A s i de t he O r der of D i s mi s s al 1
in a d d iti o n to th e d e n ia l o f h is M o tio n to I n te rv e n e . H e d id no t, h o w e v e r, a d d re ss th a t i ssu e in h is b rie f. In a d d iti o n to

o t her r eq ui rem ent s, an ap p el l ant i s t o pro vi d e i n hi s b ri ef a st at em ent of t he i ss ues, a s t at em ent of t he rel evant f act s and

an argum ent set t i ng fort h the co nt ent i o ns o f the ap p el l ant w i t h respe ct to t he i ss ues p res ent ed , a nd the reasons why t he

co nt ent i o ns requir e ap p el l at e rel i ef , al o ng wi t h ci t at i o ns t o t he aut ho ri t i es and ap p rop ri at e ref erences t o t he reco rd. T enn. R . A p p

. P

. 2 7 ( a ). A ltho u g h a n issu e m a y ha v e b e e n d e sig n a te d in the no tice o f ap p e a l, “a p a rty' s failu re to b rie f i t ordi nar i l y cons t i t ut es wai ver or abandonment of t he i s s ue. ” M os by v. Col s on , N o. W 2006- 00490- CO A- R3- CV , 2006 W L 2 3 5 4 7 6 3 , at *1 0 ( T e n n . C t. A p p . A u g u st 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 )( o the r c itatio n s o m itt e d ). A lto n B ro w n faile d to c o m p ly with R u le 2 7 (a) as t o t he d eni al of hi s M o t i o n t o Set A si d e t he O rder o f D i smi ss al

. T herefo re, we wi l l l i m i t our revi ew t o t he i ss ue properl y bri ef

ed, t hat bei ng t he propri et y of t he t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on t o deny t he M ot i on t o In t er ven e.

-2- Don B rown’s c ontest of his uncle’s w ill went to trial by jury in November of 2000. At the conclusion of B rown’s pr oof, the t ri al co u rtdirec ted a ve rdict in favor of Allene Dunnag an, dismiss ing the will contest

. Do n Br o wn ap peale d that decision. In J uly of 2003, the Court of Appea ls rever sed the dismissal of the will contest and r emande d the issue for trial on the question of undue influe nce.

On re mand, Don B rown soug ht to amend his Complaint t o implead the other heirs, including Alton Brow n. Alton Brow n, howeve r, objec ted to being added as a party to this will contest. The trial court denied t he Mot ion to I mplead Alton Br own and the ot hers. As a conseque nce, D on Br own and Allene Dunnag an re mained the only parties to the will c ontest. There afte r, Don Br own filed a Motion for Court-Orde red Me diation, and subseq u en t l y , the parties rea ched a settlement and compromise of the will contest.

I n the interim, which wa s just one mont h afte r Don B rown soug ht to impl ead A lton Brown into the will contest, Alton Brown filed a Motion to I nterve ne in the will c ontest. Although A lton B ro wn fi le d the motion , he faile d to a c c omp a ny it w itha pr op os e d p le a din g a s r e qu ir e d b y Te nn . R. Civ. P . 24. Whil e the Motion to I nterve ne was pending , Don Brown and Allene Dunna g an submitted to the court a

proposed or der to di s m i s s the will contest, which the tria l court sig ned. The order dismiss ing the will contest was filed on D ece mber 29, 2004. All the while, Alton Br own’s Motion to I nterve ne wa s pendi n g. T h e hearing on the Motion to I nterve ne, which w as orig inally set for November

of 2004, wa s rese t for January of 2005.

The he aring on Alton Brow n’s Motion to I nterve ne wa s conducte d on J anuary 28, 2005, afte r thewi ll c on te st h a d b e e n d ism iss e d. It w a s n ot u nti l th e date of thehear in g o n th e Mo tio n to I nte rv e ne t h a tA l t o n B r o w n f i l e da p r o p o s e dI n t e r v e n i n g P e t i t i o n a s r e q u i r e db y T e n n

. R

. C i v

. P. 24.03. Following the hea ring on the motion, the trial court denie d the mo t i o n , fr o m which ruling Al tonB ro wnapp e a ls.

A N A L Y SIS

Al tonB ro wnc on te nd s th e trial cou rt erred by de nying his Mo tio n to I nte rv e ne in the wi ll contest initiated by

his brother. A per son seeking to intervene must file a Motion to I nterve ne,

1 which “sha ll state the g roun d s t h er ef o re and shall be a ccompanied by a plea ding se tting forth theT h e trial c o u rt a lso m a d e the fi n d ing th a t A lto n B ro w n c o u ld no t d e c id e w h e the r h e w a n te d to su p p o rt the w ill 2

o r cont est t he wi l l , referri ng t o t he f act t hat he had previ o usl y co nsi d ered t est i f y i ng on b ehal f

of A l l ene D unnagan i n t he

w ill c o n te st.
-3- c la im o r d e fe ns e fo r w hic h in te rv e nti onis s ou ght.” T e nn . R. Civ . P. 24 .0 3. Whe retheMo tio n to I nterve ne is an int erve ntion as of rig ht, the standard by which this court re views the trial c ourt’s de c isi on is “ de no vo , exce pt fo r the tim e lin e ss of the app lic a tio n w hic h is re vie we d u nd e r an a bu se of discre tion standard.” Sta te v . B ro wn &W ill iam so n To ba c c o Co rp ., 18 S.W .3d 186, 191 (Tenn. 2 0 0 0 ) ( ci t i n g Michigan State AFL-CIO v . Miller , 103 F.3d 1240, 1245 ( 6th Cir. 1997)).

T h e tr i a l c o u rtd e n i e dA l t o n B r o w n ’ s M o t i o n t o In t e r v e n e u p o n a f i n d i n g i tw a s n o tt i m e l y, that he “ sle pt on his ri g hts fo r a lon g tim e .” B e c aus e thede nial of themotionwa s d ue to time lin e ss, 2 we will examine the issue pursuant to the a buse of disc re t i o n standard. See B rown & W illiamson Tobacco Corp. , 18 S.W.3 d at 191

. “ An abu se of dis c re tio n e xists wh e n th e re vie wi ng c ou rt is f irmly convince d that the lower

court ha s made a

mistake i n t h at i t affirmatively appea rs that the lower court' s decision has no basis in la w or in fac t and is theref ore a rbitrary , illogica l, or unconsciona ble.” Brown & W

illiamson T

obacco Corp. , 1 8 S

. W

. 3 dat1 9 1 (c i t i n g Ballard v . Herzke , 924 S.W .2d 652, 66 1 ( Te nn . 1 99 6) ; State v. Carter , 890 S.W .2d 449, 454 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) ).

Our review of the record tells us the trial c ourt did not abuse it discretion by denying A lton Br own’s less than timely and incomplete Motion to Interve ne. Alton Br own had been awar e of the will contest ever

since his brother , Don B rown, c ommenced the action in April of 2000. Prior to the first trial, D o n B r o w n f

il e da n u n s u c c e s s f

u l M o ti o n to I mp le a dth e o th e r h e ir s , in c lu d in g A lt on Br own. After having the will c ontest dismiss ed at trial in N ovember of 2000, Don Br own appe aled. This Court rever sed the dismissal of the wil l contest and remanded the case for trial on the question of undue influe nce. Se e In re Es tate of S pe nc e r B ro wn , N o

. M 2 0 0 2

- 0 0 1 4 1

- CO A

- R3

- CV , 2 0 0 3 WL 2170508 (Tenn. Ct. App. J uly 24, 2003). Upon remand to the trial court, Don B rown a g ain filed a Motion for L eaveof Court to I mplead Parties and Amend the Pet ition, in which he soug ht to add Alton Brow n and other s as parties to the will contest. Alton Br own oppos ed his brother’ s attempt to implead him into t he will contest. After the t rial court denied the Motion to I mplead, Don B rown
so ug ht t o me diate a nda

se ttl e me nt w a s re a c he d. Al tho ug h Alto n Br ow n ha d p re vio us ly re sis te d h is brother’ s eff

orts to forc e him to join the l itigation, a month after D on Br own re quested mediation, A l t o n B r o w n d e c i d e d i t w a s t i m e t o i n t e r v e n e a s a p art y i n th e w i l l c o n t e s t , h o w e v e r , h e f a ile d to follow the prope r proc edure

. Whil e the incomplete Motion to I nterve ne wa s pending , the trial court sign e d th e o r d e r d is mi s s in g th e w il l c o n te s t. T h a t o c c u rr e d o n D e c e mb e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 4

. Yet anothe r month goe s by

befor e Alton Brown complies with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24.03 bysubmitt ing a proposed pleading setting f

orth the r ea s o ns for see king intervention. Moreove r, the propose d pleading was not filed until J anuary 28, 2005, the date theMotion to I nterve ne wa s hear d, which wa s a month after the will contest had be en dismissed.
Although the casehad bee n dismiss ed a month earlier, the trial c ourt conduc ted a he aring on Alton B rown’s Motion to I nterve ne. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied the-4-

motion finding Alton Br own had “ slept on his rights.” Considering the foreg oing, we find the trial court did not abuse its discre tion by denying A lton Brown’ s Motion to I nterve ne.

The judgme nt of the trial court is a ffirme d, and this matter is r emande d with c osts of appeal assessed a g ainst Alton E. Brow n.

___________________________________ FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR ., J UDGE