1 Rule 10 (Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee). Affirmance Without Opinion . --

(a) The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm the action of the trial court by order without rendering a formal opinion when a n opinion would have no precedential value and one or more of the following circumstances exist and are dispositive of the appe al: (1) the Court concurs in the facts as found or as found by ne cessary implication by the trial cou rt. (2) there is material evidence to support the verdic t of the jury. (3) no reversible error of law a ppears. 

# FILED

July 9, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF

TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTI ON AT NASHV ILLE

) ) ) From the Probate Court IN RE: ESTATE OF ORA SLOAN ) BLANKENSHIP, Deceased ) for Davidson County, Tenne ssee ) KATHERIN

E SLOAN BRAD EN and ) The Ho norab le Wi llia m Harb ison , Jud ge STEVE SLOAN, ) ) Davidson Probate No. 94 P 1003 Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) Appeal No. 01A01-9607-CV-00290 ) v. ) AFFI RMED ) BILLIE ANN GANN, ) Dennis Clifton Wright ) Madison, Tennessee Defendant/Appellee. ) ) John H. Lowe ) Goodlettsville, Tennessee ) Attorney s for Plain tiffs/App ellants ) ) Shawn J. McBrien ) Lebanon, Tennessee ) Attorney for D efendant/Appellee

RULE 10 ORD ER AND OP INION

This matter appears appropriate for c onsideration pursuant to Rule 10(a) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee. 1 In this case, the decedent, Ora Sloan Blanke nship (“Blankenship”), 84 y ears old, die d on June 24, 1994. Subsequently, a petition was filed to proba te Blankenship’s alleged hologr aphic will. The purportedholographic will named one of Blankenship’s sister s, K athryn B raden (“Braden”) and Blankenship’s nephew, Steve Sloan (“Sloan”) as co- representatives of the estate. Another of Blankenship’s sisters, B illy Gann, fi led a re sponse

to the petition, in which she asserted that Blankenship was not of sound mind at the time the will was executed, that Sloan unduly influenced Blankenship to execute the will, and that the will was not properly executed.The matter was tried before a jury. Witnesses for both parties, inc luding experts, testified regarding Blanke nship’s sta

tements r egard ing the a lleged will, err ors or mist

akes in th e docume nt, which portions o f the doc ument wer e in Blankenship’s handwriting and which portions were written by other per sons, and whether the document was intended to be a will or merely notes inte

nded to assist a la wy er in pre

paring a will. At the conclusion of the proof, the jury returned a

jury verdict for

m which found that (1) the document in question was not Blankenship’s last will and testament, (2) the alleged will was obtained through Sloan’s undue influence over Bla nkenship, and (3) at the time the alleged will was executed, Blankenship had the requ ired men tal capa city to execute

a will. Theref

ore, the allege d will was declared invalid and the estate order ed to proceed intestate. Su bs eq ue nt ly, the plaintiffs, the proponents of the alleged will, filed a motion for

a new tri al. The trial court considered the motionand found that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the alleged will was obtained through Sloan’s undue influe nce. However, the trial

court found sufficient evidence to support the jury ’s conclusion that the document in question was

nota properly

executed holographic will and, consequently , ordered the estate to proceed intestate. The plain tiff prop onents of

the alleg ed will the

n filed thi s appeal

. On appeal, the appellants assert that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the document in question was not Blankenship’s properly executed last will and testa ment. Findi ngs of fact by a jury

ma y be set aside on a

ppeal only if there

is no material evidence to support the verdict. Rule 13(d) of the Tenn. Rules of Civ. Proc. From our examination of the record, we find material evidence to support the verdict of

the jury and no re

versible error of law by

the trial court. Therefore, the judgme nt is affirmed. Affirmed. Costs are hereby assessed against the Appellants, for which execution may issue if ne ce ss ar y.

HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, J.

W. FRAN K CRAWF ORD, P. J., W.S.

ALAN E. HIGHERS, J.