IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

April 15, 2019 Session

IN RE ESTATE OF GLADYS YARBORO LLOYD

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County

No. 76389-2 Robert E. Lee Davies, Senior Judge

___________________________________

No. E2017-02563-COA-R3-CV

___________________________________

In this probate proceeding, the trial court applied the no contest provision of the will to 

prevent the beneficiary from inheriting under the will, holding that certain actions and 

issues raised by the beneficiary triggered the provision. The court also imposed sanctions 

pursuant to Rule 11.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure against the disinherited 

beneficiary and her attorney for filing an improper lien on real property of the decedent

and in refusing to remove the lien, thereby requiring the estate to seek judicial relief. The 

beneficiary and her attorney appeal the application of the no contest clause and the 

imposition of sanctions. Upon our review, we discern no error warranting reversal and 

accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed

RICHARD H. DINKINS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. MICHAEL 

SWINEY, C.J., and THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, J., joined.

Paul Emmet Kaufman, Atlanta, Georgia, for the appellant, Yarboro Ann Sallee.

Wynne du M. Caffey-Knight and John Towers Rice, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the 

appellee, Brian Krebs.

Brown F. Lloyd, Knoxville, Tennessee, Pro Se.1

OPINION

Gladys Yarboro Lloyd died on May 14, 2015, in Knoxville, Tennessee, at the age 

of 83; she was survived by her husband, Brown Lloyd, and two daughters from a 

 

1

 Mr. Lloyd elected not to file a brief and has requested that he be listed as a “nonparticipating party” in 

this appeal and that the “case be submitted on the record and the brief filed by Mr. Krebs.”

01/08/2020
2

previous marriage, Yarboro Ann Sallee and Yancey Krebs. Ms. Lloyd died testate, and 

her will named her husband as Personal Representative and her son-in-law, Brian Krebs, 

as successor Personal Representative. On May 19, 2015, Mr. Lloyd executed an affidavit 

declining to serve as Personal Representative and consenting to the appointment of Mr. 

Krebs; on June 8, Mr. Krebs filed a petition to admit the will to probate, and the will was

duly admitted and letters testamentary issued to him on June 9. 

On October 30, 2015, Ms. Sallee, who is an attorney and proceeded pro se, filed a

pleading which consisted of three motions; one was entitled “Motion for Full Accounting 

by Executor of All Financial Matters Including the Matter of the Million Dollar Appeal 

of Benefits My Mother Owned of Over One Million Dollars”, one entitled “Motion for 

Quantum Meruit Payment for Work Performed by Attorney Sallee for Three Years in 

Benefits Million Dollar Case”, and one entitled “Motion to Compel the Production of All 

Materials and Files Related to the Motions.” The Personal Representative responded to 

the motions on February 2, 2016; pertinent to the issues raised in this appeal, the response 

states:

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR FULL ACCOUNTING

3. The Movant is not, in her individual capacity, a beneficiary under 

the Will. The Movant is the beneficiary of demonstrative bequests of 

personal effects pursuant to a writing left by the Decedent in accordance 

with Article I, Paragraph C of the Will, a copy of which was filed with the 

Court along the original Will. The Personal Representative intends to 

comply with wishes of the Decedent as set forth in this writing. 

Accordingly, the Movant lacks standing to request said accounting.

4. Further, as to the issue of the Movant’s entitlement to an 

accounting, the Personal Representative notes that: (i) the Movant is the 

beneficiary of a trust which is merely the recipient of a specific devise of 

real property under Article I, Paragraph A of the Will, (ii) said specifically 

devised real estate is part of the probate estate pursuant to the fifth 

paragraph of Article II, (iii) the decedent was survived by her husband, 

Brown F. Lloyd, and accordingly the sole beneficiary of the Decedent’s 

residuary estate under Paragraph III, Paragraph A, is a trust of which the 

decedent’s husband is the current beneficiary.

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR QUANTUM MERUIT

1. The Motion as filed does not constitute a valid claim against the 

Decedent’s estate under T.C.A. §30-2-307 as it does not include an itemized 

statement of account, copy of the written instrument or certified judgment 

or decree as required by TC.A. §30-2-307(b), does not appear to have been 
3

filed in triplicate as required by T.C.A. §30-2-307(c) and as a purported 

claim is void ab initio.

2. A copy of the Notice to Creditors was provided to the Movant on 

November 17, 2015 via both certified mail return receipt requested (which 

was returned as unclaimed) and regular U.S. Mail, a copy of which is 

attached as Exhibit B. To date, no claim has been filed, and the time for 

filing a valid claim pursuant to T.C.A. §30-2-307 has passed. Accordingly, 

any claim which might subsequently be filed against the Estate by the 

Movant on quantum merit or any other matter on any grounds is time 

barred.

Over the next eight months, Ms. Sallee filed more than ten similar pleadings,

most of which contained multiple motions illustrating her dissatisfaction with the 

administration of her mother’s estate and prayers for relief of various sorts.2,3 On June 

 

2

 Examples of the pleadings included one filed February 8, 2016:

1. PETITION FOR THE REMOVAL OF EXECUTOR BROWN F. LLOYD AND 

FOR THE REMOVAL OF ALTERNATE EXECUTOR BRYAN KREBS AND TO 

NAME YARBORO SALLEE AS EXECUTOR OF THIS ESTATE

2. PETITION TO REMOVE BROWN LLOYD AND BRYAN KREBS AS

TRUSTEES AND NAME YARBORO SALLEE AS TRUSTEE AND AN 

UNBIASED THIRD PARTY AS TRUSTEE

3. PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF ESTATE ATTORNEY LAUREN BROWN AND 

HER FIRM DUE TO MALFEASANCE AND MISHANDLING OF THE ESTATE

4. ALL ITEMS BE ORDERED DISTRIBUTED TO PETITIONER IMMEDIATELY

And one filed February 26, 2016: 

1. MOTION TO STRIKE FEBRUARY 18TH SECRET HEARING FOR GROSS 

IMPROPRIETY AND FOR CLERK HOGAN TO FORMALLY RECUSE 

HIMSELF DUE TO GROSS IMPROPRIETY & MOTION TO COMPEL 

PRODUCTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT CREATED BY GAMMELTOFT’S 

COURT REPORTER IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS

2. RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF FULL ACCOUNTING 

AND TO DENY MOTION TO FRAUDULENTLY CLAIM PETITIONER HAS 

CHALLENGED WILL WHEN THIS WAS SPECIFICALLY NOT DONE AND 

FORMALLY ASSIGN PETITIONER AS CO-TRUSTEE PURSUANT TO THE 

WILL

3. RENEWED MOTION TO REMOVE EXECUTOR BROWN LLOYD AND 

BRYAN KREBS AS FAILING IN THEIR FIDUCIARY DUTY TO PETITIONER 

BY ACTING GROSSLY UNJUSTLY AND ABUSIVELY AND NOT 

COMPETENTLY WHEN COMPARED WITH OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO 

RECEIVED “BEQUESTS”.

4. MOTION IN OPPOSITION OF GAMMELTOFT’S MOTION TO MAKE 

“MEMORANDUM” PART OF THE AND DEMAND BY PETITIONER FOR 

PRODUCTION OF ALL ITEMS LISTED IN THIS “MEMORANDUM” TO
4

24, 2016, the Estate filed a motion seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether Ms. 

Sallee’s conduct constituted an attack on the validity of the Will, thereby triggering the 

forfeiture clause at Article VI, paragraph 7 of the will, and resulting in the loss of her 

inheritance.4 On December 2, 2016, the trial court entered an order stating that “upon the 

agreement of all parties concerned and the entire record as a whole, the heir, Yarboro 

Ann Sallee hereby withdraws all Motions heretofore filed.”

The trial court held a hearing on the Estate’s motion on March 21, 2017, and 

entered an order on April 6, holding that “[t]he actions of Yarboro Ann Sallee were a 

contest or attack on the validity of the Will of Gladys Yarboro Lloyd” and that “[t]hese 

multiple attacks were not made in good faith or with reasonable justification.” The trial 

court invoked the clause and excluded Ms. Sallee from receiving any disposition under 

 

PROVE NOT DISBURSED PURSUANT TO LAUREN BROWN’S EMAIL OF 

LAST MONTH DENYING ANY ITEMS HAD BEEN DISTRIBUTED.HER 

MOTHER THAT WAS GIVEN BY WILLIAM EDGAR SALLEE SR. TO

DECEDENT.

5. RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE RENT OWED 

PETITIONER AND ALL JEWELRY IN PARTICULAR THE ENGAGEMENT 

RING LEFT TO PETITIONER BY DECEDENT WHEN RENT GWEN TO

FORMER SISTER LYNN KREBS MONTHS AGO

6. MOTION TO BAN EXECUTOR AND ESTATE ATTORNEY FROM ALLOWING 

ANY SALE OF THE 112 PRATT AND PROPERTY EXCEPT TO SELL IT TO

PETITIONER

7. MOTION TO ORDER THE IMMEDIATE HALT OF ANY FINANCIAL ACTIONS BY 

EITHER TRUSTEE, EXECUTOR OR ESTATE ATTORNEYS.

3

 Also during this time, Ms. Sallee filed suit in federal court against Knox County and the Clerk and 

Master, seeking recovery of the sum of $330,000, which she alleged the Clerk and Master and his office 

had “misapplied and mishandled.” After initiating the federal suit, Ms. Sallee filed numerous motions in 

the instant proceeding to recuse the Clerk and Master as well as the judges assigned to hear the case. In 

due course, the Clerk and Master recused himself, along with the original Knox County Chancellor, and 

the Anderson County Chancellor who was sitting by interchange; the Tennessee Supreme Court 

appointed Senior Judge Robert E. Lee Davies to hear matters in this proceeding on January 4, 2017.

4

 The forfeiture clause states:

DEFINITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION PROVISIONS

***

7. No Contest. If any person should, in any manner, directly or indirectly, contest or 

attack the validity of this Will by filing suit against my Personal Representative(s) or 

otherwise, then that contesting person and all descendants of that contesting person shall 

be specifically excluded from receiving any disposition under this Will. Furthermore, no 

parent may contest this Will on behalf of a minor child who is a beneficiary of this Will 

and if they attempt to do so, that parent will be excluded from receiving any disposition 

under this Will.

 
5

the will. Ms. Sallee moved to alter or amend the order, asserting that she had not 

challenged the validity of the will and “would have had a good faith basis to challenge 

the validity of the will had she chosen to.” The court granted the motion to “allow Ms. 

Sallee to give testimony in order to explain her intent for the pleadings which she filed in 

this case . . . so that the Court can make a further determination regarding the requirement 

of good faith and probable cause.” An evidentiary hearing was held on September 8, at 

which Ms. Sallee testified, and the court entered an order on September 25 affirming the 

April 6 order. 5,6

On July 12, 2017, Ms. Sallee and her counsel, Paul Kaufman, recorded a lien 

against property located at 112 Pratt Lane, Oak Ridge, which was owned by Ms. Lloyd at 

her death, to secure payment of Ms. Sallee’s quantum meruit claim for services rendered 

in the life insurance benefits matter referenced in the October 30, 2015 pleading. The 

Personal Representative moved to require Ms. Sallee to release the lien; at an August 15, 

2017 hearing, the court granted the motion and, on its own initiative, found that sanctions

should be imposed pursuant to Rule 11.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 

against Ms. Sallee and Mr. Kaufman for filing an improper lien. An order was entered on 

August 31, nunc pro tunc to August 15, memorializing the oral ruling and directing the 

Personal Representative’s attorneys to file affidavits of their time and expenses related to 

getting the lien released and to serve those affidavits on Mr. Kaufman, “who may show

cause for why sanctions should not be awarded in that amount.” The court designated the 

order as a final order pursuant to Rule 54.02, and Ms. Sallee and Mr. Kaufman filed a 

notice of appeal on September 14.7

 

5

 On June 8, 2017, Ms. Sallee, now represented by counsel, filed a pleading styled “BENEFICIARY 

YARBORO ANN SALLEE’S NOTICE OF WILL CONTEST, DEVISIT [sic] VEL NON ACTION, 

ELECTION OF KNOX COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,” in which she challenged the validity of the will 

on various grounds, and requested that Ms. Lloyd’s will be set aside. On July 12, 2017, Ms. Sallee filed a 

document styled “RENEWED MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF WILL CONTEST FILED 

ORIGINALLY ON JUNE 8

TH

, 2017,” in which she invoked Tennessee Code Annotated section 32-4-

101, et seq., and asserted the eight specific grounds of the contest. On August 31, 2017 the trial court 

entered an order reciting that the Notice filed June 8 and Renewed Motion filed July 12 were withdrawn 

with prejudice; the order was entered as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54.02. These pleadings were 

filed and the order entered after the court had entered the April 6, 2017 order holding that Ms. Sallee’s 

actions constituted “a contest or attack on the validity of the Will of Gladys Yarboro Lloyd,” and that 

“[t]hese multiple attacks were not made in good faith or with reasonable justification,” thereby excluding 

Ms. Sallee from receiving any disposition under the will pursuant to the no contest clause, and prior to the 

denial of the motion to alter or amend filed by Ms. Sallee. In light of this unique procedural history, we 

will not consider the effect of the Notice and Renewed Motion in our review of the court’s ruling on the 

Estate’s motion for a declaratory judgment as to the applicability of the no contest clause. 

6

 On October 27, Ms. Sallee filed a notice of appeal of this order. In this Court, the case was assigned the 

number E2017-02563-COA-R3-CV. 

7

 The appeal of the August 15 order imposing sanctions was docketed as No. E2017-01860-COA-R3-
6

After the attorneys filed their affidavits, the court entered an order on September 

21, awarding a judgment in the amount of $16,529.09 against Mr. Kaufman and Ms. 

Sallee for attorneys fees incurred by the estate. On March 27, 2018, Ms. Sallee and Mr. 

Kaufman filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60.02(2) and (5) to set aside the sanctions, 

which the court granted in order to permit Mr. Kaufman to make arguments “which he 

failed to make prior to the entry of the order on September 25 [sic], 2017.” By order 

entered May 15, 2018, the trial court reaffirmed the August 24, 2017 order awarding

sanctions. Ms. Sallee and Mr. Kaufman filed a notice appealing this order, which was 

docketed as No. E2018-00993-COA-R3-CV. The trial court subsequently entered an 

order staying all efforts to execute the judgment regarding the Rule 11 sanctions pending 

this appeal. By order entered August 27, 2018, this Court consolidated appeals Nos.

E2017-02563 and E2018-00993.

In their brief on appeal, Appellants state fifteen issues for resolution.

8

 The 

 

CV; the notice of appeal stated:

Notice is hereby given that Yarboro Sallee, Beneficiary and her attorney Paul Kaufman 

hereby appeal to the Court of Appeals from all aspects of the order dated August 31, 

2017, nunc pro tunc to August 15, 2017 designated as a final judgment pursuant to 

Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02 from which appeal may be taken, even though 

the amount of the Rule 11 sanctions has not been determined. 

Ms. Sallee failed to file a transcript of the evidence, a statement of the evidence, or a notice that neither 

would be filed, as required by Rule 24 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, resulting in the 

dismissal of the appeal. After the mandate was issued, Ms. Sallee and her attorney filed a motion to recall 

the mandate, to extend the time to comply with Rule 24, and to reinstate the appeal; the basis of the 

motion was asserted to be the “excusable neglect because of the decompensated mental illness” of Mr. 

Kaufman attorney and because “this case is not ripe for appeal because there remain unresolved issues in 

the trial court.” The motion was denied; however, we directed that: 

[Th]e Notice of Appeal filed on October 27, 2017, and directed to the final judgment in 

the proceedings below entered in late September of 2017 [No. E2017-02563], shall be 

considered by the Appellate Court Clerk as initiating a new appeal as of right from that 

final judgment. The notice received from the Trial Court Clerk on January 4, 2018 

[indicating that Ms. Sallee had not filed a transcript of the evidence in case E2017-

01860], shall be considered a part of the appeal initiated by the Notice of Appeal filed on 

October 27, 2017. The appellants shall have sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this 

order within which to comply in the appeal from the final judgment with Rule 24 of the 

Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Thus, in this appeal we will consider the rulings imposing sanctions against Ms. Sallee and Mr. Kaufman 

and holding that Ms. Sallee’s conduct of this proceeding invokes the no contest clause of Ms. Lloyd’s 

will. 

8

 In their reply brief they categorize the issues into three areas:
7

arguments in their brief do not address all fifteen issues, and most of the statements made 

in the argument section of the brief are not supported by reference to the record or 

citation to legal authority. From our review of the briefs of the parties as well as the 

record we discern two dispositive issues: whether the trial court erred in its construction 

and application of the no contest clause in the will, and whether the imposition of 

sanctions was proper.9 

II. ANALYSIS

A. The No Contest Clause

In Winningham v. Winningham, our Supreme Court acknowledged that, while a 

forfeiture clause in a will is not void, it will not be enforced where the will contest is 

undertaken in good faith: 

This Court has recognized that a forfeiture provision in a will is not void as 

against public policy. Tate v. Camp, 147 Tenn. 137, 149, 245 S.W. 839, 

842 (1922); Thompson v. Gaut, 82 Tenn. 310, 314 (1884). However, it has 

 

a) Issues 1 through 4 address errors regarding interpretation and application of the in 

terrorem clause of the will;

b) Issues 5 through 10 . . . address the objections Appellant has voiced about the 

manner in which the Appellee (or his counsel) were failing to fulfill their duties in 

executing the terms of the Will, because of bad blood bias and conflicts of 

interest, mismanagement of assets, and a failure to honor the fiduciary duty 

required in the relationship and dealings with Appellant;

c) Issues 11 through 15 address the sanctions assessed sua sponte by the court 

against Ms. Sallee and Mr. Kaufman for an action taken to secure a quantum 

meruit claim against the estate after the trial court had already disinherited Ms. 

Sallee under the in terrorem clause.

9

 In Forbess v. Forbess, this Court observed that:

This court has repeatedly held that a party’s failure to cite authority for its arguments or 

to argue the issues in the body of its brief constitute a waiver on appeal. Newcomb v. 

Kohler Co., 222 S.W.3d 368, 401 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (failure “to cite to any authority 

or to construct an argument regarding [a] position on appeal” constitutes a waiver of the 

issue); Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52, 55–56 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (“Courts have routinely 

held that the failure to make appropriate references to the record and to cite relevant 

authority in the argument section of the brief as required by Rule 27(a)(7) constitutes a 

waiver of the issue.”).

370 S.W.3d 347, 355 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). 
8

been the rule since Tate v. Camp, that a forfeiture provision will not be 

enforced where a contest is pursued “in good faith and upon probable 

cause.” After considering decisions from other jurisdictions, the Court in 

Tate v. Camp approved the following from South Norwalk Trust Co. v. St. 

John, 92 Conn. 168, 101 A. 961, 963 (1917), “‘Where the contest has not 

been made in good faith, and upon probable cause and reasonable 

justification, the forfeiture should be given full operative effect. Where the 

contrary appears, the legatee ought not to forfeit his legacy.’” Tate v. Camp,

147 Tenn. at 155-56, 245 S.W. at 844.

966 S.W.2d 48, 51 (Tenn. 1998). Thus, we begin by examining the actions of Ms. Sallee 

to determine whether the evidence supports the trial court’s holding that those actions 

effectively initiated a will contest and whether the actions were pursued in good faith and 

upon probable cause and reasonable justification. Our review of the court’s factual 

determinations is de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness 

of those findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. 

P. 13(d); Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001). We review the court’s 

conclusions of law de novo without affording any presumption of correctness to those 

conclusions. In re Estate of Milam, 181 S.W.3d 344, 353 (Tenn. Ct. App. 200) (citing In 

re Estate of Vincent, 98 S.W.3d 146, 148 (Tenn. 2003)).

The Personal Representative sought to have the court determine whether Ms. 

Sallee’s filings of “approximately twenty-six motions and/or petitions” “have constituted 

an attack on the validity of the Will such as to trigger forfeiture of her inheritance under 

the in terrorem clause under the Will.” 

In the April 6, 2017 order, the trial court stated the factual basis of its holding that 

Ms. Sallee’s conduct constituted a will contest thusly:

The issue is whether the pleadings filed by Ms. Sallee amount to 

either a direct or an indirect attack upon the validity of the Will which 

therefore triggers the no-contest provision.

In this case, Ms. Sallee has requested the Court to remove both the 

executor and the alternate executor, and instead appoint her as executor of 

Ms. Lloyd’s Will. She has made the same request regarding the trustees.

She has requested the Court to find both the personal representative and the 

Estate’s attorney in contempt. She has requested the immediate payment of 

all funds and personal items to which she claims she is entitled, even 

though she is only the beneficiary of a testamentary trust which has not yet 

been funded, and not a beneficiary under the Will. Finally, Ms. Sallee 

produced a quitclaim deed purportedly executed by Ms. Lloyd transferring 

all of the interest in the property at 112 Pratt Lane in Anderson County to 
9

her.

The Court finds that the above actions by Ms. Sallee amount to, at a 

minimum, indirect attacks upon the validity of her mother’s Will. In 

particular, Ms. Sallee requested the Court to award her the entire interest in 

112 Pratt Lane pursuant to the quitclaim deed, which is completely 

inconsistent with the Will which devises said property forty percent (40%) 

to Yancy Krebs and sixty percent (60%) to the Yarboro Sallee Trust. No 

person can take any beneficial interest in a will, and at the same time set up 

any right or claim of their own, even if well founded, which would defeat, 

or in any way prevent, the full effect and operation of every part of the will. 

Duncan v. Peebles, 192 S.W.2d 235, 241 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1945). The 

pleadings filed by Ms. Sallee requesting the Court to award her the entire 

interest in the property at 112 Pratt Lane and to grant her immediate 

possession of said property was an intentional election to claim a complete 

interest in the 112 Pratt Lane property under the purported quitclaim deed, 

rather than as a beneficiary of the testamentary trust (60%) under the Will. 

Thus, Ms. Sallee knowingly chose to challenge or contest the validity of 

this section of the Will.

Ms. Sallee also contested the Will by filing vexatious pleadings. She 

requested the removal of the executors and the trustees and appointing 

herself instead. She asked the Court to enjoin the Estate from any 

disbursement of funds. She petitioned the Court to require the Estate to 

provide her with funds to hire her own attorney. She asked the Court to 

order the immediate payment of all funds which she claimed were owed to 

her, including rent, and she filed a motion to hold the personal 

representative in contempt. All of these actions fly in the face of the

intended purpose of the no-contest clause in Ms. Lloyd’s Will, which was 

to guard against vexatious litigation, Smithsonian Institution v. Meech, 

supra at 402, and to exclude from her bounty those beneficiaries who 

unsuccessfully sought to thwart her testamentary wishes. Lytle v. Zebold,

357 S.W.2d 20, 21 (Ark. 1962).

Having found that the actions of Yarboro Sallee have triggered the 

no-contest provision of her mother’s Will, the Court then must determine 

whether the pleadings filed by Ms. Sallee were done in good faith and with 

probable cause or reasonable justification. Tate v. Camp, supra. With 

regard to the quitclaim deed produced by Ms. Sallee purportedly 

transferring the property at 112 Pratt Lane to her, the Estate in its separate 

complaint, points out the following undisputed facts:

1. The deed was never recorded with the Register of Deeds 
10

for Anderson County;

2. The name of the grantor on the quitclaim deed does not 

match the name of the owner of record of the realty;

3. The quitclaim deed lacks the identity of the preparer of the 

document;

4. The notarization on the deed is a jurat, not an 

acknowledgement, which is required by Tenn. Code Ann. 

§ 66-5-106.

In open Court on March 21, 2017, Ms. Sallee, through her new attorney, 

Mr. Yuiil stated Ms. Sallee was withdrawing her claim based upon the 

quitclaim deed. The Court notes that Ms. Sallee’s change of position is 

directly contra to the legal position she took in her Answer to the 

Complaint filed on October 4, 2016, to clear the cloud upon the title filed 

by the Estate in the Chancery Court of Anderson County, Tennessee, 

Docket No. 16CH8283. The actions by Ms. Sallee are clearly 

distinguishable from the actions of Ms. Winningham in Winningham v.

Winningham, supra.

This Court finds there is not a scintilla of good faith or reasonable 

justification in any of the above pleadings filed by Ms. Sallee.

We address first matters related to Ms. Sallee’s claims to the Pratt Lane property, 

following which we will address the conduct of the litigation.

1. The Pratt Lane Property

With respect to the quitclaim deed upon which Ms. Sallee relied to argue that she 

owned the property at 112 Pratt Lane, the Personal Representative asserted:

The real property located at 112 Pratt Lane consists of two parcels: 

Tract One acquired by Ms. Sallee’s parents “William E. Sallee and wife, 

Yarboro Barnette Sallee” in 1957 and Tract Two acquired by “William E. 

Sallee and his wife, Yarboro B. Sallee” in 1960. In connection with the 

Sallees’ divorce, the Decedent quitclaimed Tract One and Tract Two to her 

ex-husband William E. Sallee by separate deeds in 1986, copies of which 

deeds are of record in Warranty Deed Book N, Series 16 at Page 451 and 

Warranty Deed Book N, Series 16 at Page 454 in the Register’s Office of 

Anderson County, Tennessee. On June 10, 2010, the Decedent purchased 

Tract One and Tract Two from the Estate of her deceased ex-husband 

William Edgar Sallee, Sr., both of which were transferred to her via a 

Personal Representative’s Deed of record in Deed Book 1523, Pages 1229-

1232 in the Register’s Office of Anderson County, Tennessee. Copies of all 
11

referenced deeds are attached as collective Exhibit A.

The unrecorded Quitclaim Deed filed by Ms. Sallee (the property 

description of which includes only Tract One), was allegedly signed by the 

Decedent on July 16, 2009, a date upon which the Decedent did not own 

the property. . . .

The record shows the following pleadings filed by Ms. Sallee relative to the Pratt 

Lane property:

 In a pleading February 26, 2016, Ms. Sallee sought to have the court “ban” 

the personal representative and estate’s attorney from selling the property at 

112 Pratt Lane. She alleged that “Brown Lloyd and the executor and his 

wife, Bryan and Lynn Krebs, are colluding to force petitioner to sell a

house she owns 60% of and wants to purchase.”10

 On May 31, 2016, Ms. Sallee filed a pleading requesting that the court 

certify a codicil as part of the will; that certain items be distributed to her; 

and that the court accept a quitclaim deed Mrs. Lloyd had purportedly 

executed that transferred her interest in the 112 Pratt Lane property to Ms. 

Sallee. In the pleading, Ms. Sallee alleged:

The codicil is affirmed in the body of the will that has already been 

affirmed. Further, all items in the codicil have been distributed by 

the executor Brown Lloyd and the executor Brian Krebs over one 

year ago at the funeral of decedent. The executors only withheld 

those items designated for Yarboro Sallee out of malice toward her.

 In the same pleading, Ms. Sallee also sought to have the court “accept [a] 

quit claim deed [executed] by Decedent to Petitioner as valid and transfer[] 

to Petitioner all interests in 112 [Pratt Lane] Property held by Testatrix.” 

The pertinent language of this portion of the motion states:

Attached is a copy of a quit claim deed signed by testatrix 

transferring all of her interests in the 112 Pratt Lane property to 

petitioner for this Court’s consideration. This document clearly sets 

out that petitioner owns any interests held by testatrix in the 

property at 112 Pratt Lane and also clearly documents the 

intentions of testatrix to make this property available for the use 

 

10 In her pleading, Ms. Sallee requested that the court enjoin the sale of the 112 Pratt Lane property to any 

party but her “as she owns 60% of the property and it was the will of the decedent that she own the 

property.” 
12

of petitioner and to gift this property to petitioner. Petitioner moves

that this document be accepted and that she immediately be given 

access to and possession of this property for her use. Additionally, 

she requests that this Court order that Brown Lloyd, Brian Krebs 

and Yancey Krebs be ordered to refrain from any interference 

with petitioner’s use of this property and to stop any harassment 

and or any interference of any kind with petitioner’s life, 

employment and any aspect of petitioner’s life and pursuit of quiet 

enjoyment and happiness by her such as stalking petitioner, entering 

on to any property she occupies, contacting employers or potential 

employers of petitioner, monitoring petitioner in any manner and 

questioning friends and acquaintances of petitioner, taking pictures 

of petitioner’s vehicles and property and defaming petitioner by

making false statements and statements that place her in to a false 

light calculated to cause damage and destruction in petitioner’s life.

Petitioner only seeks to receive those funds and gifts her mother 

intended for her to have and to be left undisturbed by any further 

harassment by the present executors Brown Lloyd and Brian Krebs 

and her former sister Yancey Krebs.

It is clear that testatrix’s intention was to provide a place for 

petitioner’s use to reside if desired by petitioner and to provide 

security and funds for her welfare, It is also clear that the 

testatrix intended for petitioner to be treated fairly and for her 

to have access to any funds and the property at 112 Pratt Lane 

for her use and that the present and former executors Brown Lloyd 

and Brian Krebs are colluding to interfere and prevent petitioner’s 

right to such property and funds meant for her.

Whether one accepts the will and codicil as stated, or the fact that 

the trust fund was named after petitioner, or that petitioner owns 

60% or 100% of the property at 112 Pratt Lane, it was clearly the 

intention of decedent to assist petitioner in any manner necessary[.] 

The present executors collectively, in collusion with the other 

beneficiary Yancey Krebs, have sought to deprive petitioner of her 

right to access to property, funds and items left to her by her mother 

and have acted to assist each other while reducing any and all gifts 

and funds to petitioner.

(Emphasis added). In her prayer for relief, Ms. Sallee sought “[t]hat 100% 

ownership of the 112 Pratt Lane property be determined to exist by petitioner of 

the 112 Pratt Lane property pursuant to a quit claim deed signed by testatrix.”

 In a pleading filed June 20, Ms. Sallee reiterated the same allegations as 

above with respect to the quitclaim deed and alleged that “it was clearly the 
13

intent of testatrix to provide for the needs of petitioner as she named the 

trust the ‘Yarboro Sallee Trust’[; t]he drafting of the will seems to have 

been so negligent (or malicious) as to have defeated the clear intents of 

testatrix.” She also continued to allege that she owned the property at 112 

Pratt Lane, and asked the court “. . . that she be given all items and funds 

owed her immediately including all rents paid as petitioner owns the home 

in full immediately.” The prayer for relief requested that the court “order 

that the 112 Pratt Lane house belongs solely to petitioner and she be given 

all the keys immediately with the deed signed over to her.” 

The litany of pleadings shows that Ms. Sallee vigorously advocated that she was 

entitled to receive a greater portion of the estate than that given to her in the Will and 

persisted in that belief; as such, her actions constitute an indirect attack on the validity of 

the Will.

2. The Conduct of the Litigation

In addition to the foregoing, the record contains the following documents which 

are emblematic of the claims asserted and issues injected into this proceeding by Ms. 

Sallee:

 On February 8, 2016, Ms. Salle filed a pleading containing four different 

petitions. In a portion of the pleading styled “Petition for Removal of Estate 

Attorney Lauren Brown and her Firm Due to Malfeasance and Mishandling 

of the Estate,” Ms. Sallee made the following representation: 

1. First, Ms. Brown is not the attorney who signed the will[.]

[T]he attorney who should be handling this is Ms. Gammeltoft[,]

and Ms. Brown cannot handle the matter as she was not present at 

the signing of the will nor did she handle the decedent’s estate.

Further, there will be the need for the testimony of Ms. Brown 

concerning issues surrounding the sabotage of petitioner’s 

employment by executor and attorney for the estat[e] Ms. Brown’s 

involvement in this attack on petitioner and collusion with Mr. 

Krebs and his involvement in other abuses of petitioner and Ms. 

Gammeltoft will need to testify about the conditions of the will as it 

appears that inappropriate actions were engaged in during the will 

that petitioner will explore prior to deciding whether or not to 

challenge the will in toto as invalid or fraudulent. At this time 

petitioner is not challenging the will but petitioner is entitled to all 

information available concerning and surrounding the preparation, 

attendance, construction and all other circumstances surrounding 

the “will” and petitioner does not waive her right to this information 
14

and demands all available information be provided to petitioner 

immediately.

(Emphasis added.) 

 In a pleading filed on February 26, Ms. Sallee made allegations that “assets 

have been withheld from petitioner in a willful and malicious attempt with 

collusion by Lauran [sic] Brown and her firm and Brown Lloyd and Krebs 

to starve petitioner out to force her to sign off on the administration of the 

estate without any accounting as is her right to demand.” She stated that she 

“has made it clear that at this time she is not challenging the will,” yet she 

also states that the will “has been drafted so badly” and is “subject to varied 

interpretations.” In the same petition, she alleges:

The clear intent of the will of decedent, who states she is leaving 

much greater funds and assets to petitioner than the other daughter of 

decedent due to her health. The intent of the will is clear that 

petitioner receives any and all funds she wants or needs at any time. 

The fact that the estate attorney has badly written the will against the 

stated intentions of the decedent in the body of the will means that 

that firm is incompetent both ethically and functionally and the 

interpretation of the will and the intent of the will, which is the duty

of the estate attorney, MUST be given to competent and ethical 

attorney(s) and the executor who has colluded in this twisting of the 

intent of the decedent’s will again makes him grossly unfit to serve 

as executor and he should be removed immediately he accept a 

ridiculous payment to petitioner for the item an offer which has been 

refused but the ring is still being withheld while all other “gifts”

have been distributed over nine months ago.

 The February 26 pleading also contains her opposition to the Estate’s 

motion to make a memorandum Ms. Lloyd had prepared purporting to 

dispose of personal effects a part of the will. Ms. Sallee argued that the 

memorandum, which she identified as containing a list of personal property 

her Mother wished to distribute to certain beneficiaries, was “drafted by the 

estate[’s] firm,” was “improper,” and “does not properly follow the probate 

laws.” She also states, after making these arguments, that “such argument 

is NOT a challenging of the will.” 

 On March 5, 2016, Ms. Sallee filed a pleading titled “Responses by 

Petitioner to Response of ‘Estate Attorney Lauren Brown’ on Behalf of 

Alleged ‘Executor’ (There has been no legal Renunciation by Lloyd Bown) 

Bryan Krebs.” It is unclear from the pleading precisely which pleading filed 
15

by the Personal Representative she was responding to, but in her response, 

Ms. Sallee states:

The intent of the decedent’s will is clear where she states, in her own

words, that she wants petitioner to have any funds she needs for any 

matter including medical expenses, living expenses, educational 

expenses and any expenses. The badly written will by Brown and

Gammeltoft clearly sets out the INTENT OF DECEDENT to assist 

and provide for any needs of petitioner, any other interpretation is 

grossly biased and defeats the CLEAR INTENT OF THE 

DECEDENT AND PETITIONER SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED 

FOR THE INCOMPETENT WRITING BY GAMMELTOFT.

Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the volume, tone, and largely 

unsupported allegations in the plethora of pleadings, many of which expressed her 

dissatisfaction with the administration of the estate in various respects, including the nonpayment to her of funds she contended were owed to her, support the court’s holding that 

Ms. Sallee contested the will by filing vexatious pleadings. 

The record supports the determination that Ms. Sallee’s efforts with respect to the 

Pratt Lane property and her conduct of this litigation, together with the trial court’s 

adverse determination as to her credibility, support the holding that there was no good 

faith basis, probable cause, or reasonable justification for Ms. Sallee’s efforts to secure a 

different result than that clearly set forth by her mother in her Will.11 We affirm the 

holding that she was excluded from taking under the will by application of the no contest 

clause. 

B. Rule 11 Sanctions 

Ms. Sallee and Mr. Kaufman next appeal the trial court’s award of sanctions; the 

order making the award, entered August 31, 2017, stated in pertinent part:

10. The Court finds that Mr. Kaufman and Ms. Sallee have deliberately 

attempted to sabotage the closing on the 112 Pratt Lane Property by filing 

the Lien, and that they filed the Lien only for the reason to tie up the Estate.

11. The Court finds that Mr. Kaufman and Ms. Sallee’s filing of the Lien 

together with their subsequent advocacy of the Lien to the Court was 

frivolous, done for an improper motive to harass, delay and obstruct 

 

11

 Following entry of the April 6 order, Ms. Sallee filed a motion to alter or amend, as a result of which 

the court held another hearing to permit Ms. Sallee to testify, after which the court entered another order

in which the court detailed her testimony, found her not to be credible, and reaffirmed the April 6 order. 
16

administration of the Estate, and that there was no basis whatsoever to file 

or advocate for the Lien.

The Court then held:

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Court, on its own 

initiative, has determined that the filing of the Lien by Ms. Sallee and Mr. 

Kaufman and the advocacy of the Lien to the Court by Mr. Kaufman on 

Ms. Sallee’s [behalf] violate Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11.02; it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Court, on its own 

initiative, is assessing sanctions against both Mr. Kaufman and Ms. Sallee 

pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11.03; it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Attorney Lisa Gammeltoft, 

on behalf of the Law Firm Kizer & Gammeltoft, PC, and that Attorney 

John Rice, on behalf of the Law Firm Elmore, Stone & Caffey, PLLC, are 

directed to submit affidavits of time and expenses related to their filing the

Motion for Order Compelling Yarboro Sallee to Release Lien Wrongfully 

Recorded Against the 112 Pratt Lane Property and getting the improper 

Lien removed, with copies of the Affidavits to be served upon Mr. 

Kaufman, who may show cause for why sanctions should not be awarded in 

that amount; it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the specific award of 

monetary sanctions shall be taken under advisement until further Court 

Order.

The court entered an order on September 21 awarding fees of $14,837.49 to Mr. Rice and 

$1,682.60 to Ms. Gammeltoft. On March 27, 2018, Appellants filed a motion pursuant to 

Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(2) and (5) to set aside the sanctions on the 

ground of Mr. Kaufman’s excusable neglect; the court granted the motion “to consider 

the arguments [Ms. Kaufman] failed to make prior to the entry of the order on September 

25, 2017 as to why he and his client should not be found in violation of Rule 11.02(1) and 

(2).”12 On May 15, 2008, the court entered an order reaffirming the August 25, 2017 

order awarding sanctions.13 On appeal, Ms. Sallee and Mr. Kaufman assert that 

imposition of sanctions was error because “there was a good faith basis for the extension 

of existing law regarding the filing of the lien or, in the alternative, . . . the sanctions . . . 

 

12

 The file stamp date on the order setting the amount of sanctions is September 21, 2017. 

13

 In the order, the court addressed and rejected three contentions Appellants raised related to the award 

of sanctions: (1) that Rule 11 does not permit a court to award sanctions sua sponte; (2) that sanctions 

cannot be awarded on the court’s initiative unless the show cause is issued before the suit is voluntarily 

dismissed; and (3) that sanctions could not be awarded against Ms. Sallee pursuant to Rule 11.02(2) 

because she was a represented party. 
17

[were] assessed contrary to the mandatory provisions of T.R.C.P. 11.03 subsections (2) 

and (3).” 

The standard of review we apply to this decision was set forth in Brown v. 

Shappley:

We review a trial court’s ruling on a Rule 11 motion under an abuse of 

discretion standard. Hooker v. Sundquist, 107 S.W.3d 532, 535 (Tenn. Ct.

App. 2002). An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision of the lower 

court has no basis in law or fact and is therefore arbitrary, illogical, or 

unconscionable. Id. (citing State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 18 

S.W.3d 186, 191 (Tenn. 2000)). Our review of Rule 11 decisions is 

governed under this deferential standard since the question of whether a 

Rule 11 violation has occurred requires the trial court to make highly factintensive determinations regarding the reasonableness of the attorney's 

conduct. Id. We review the trial court’s findings of fact with a presumption 

of correctness, unless the evidence preponderates against the finding. 

Id.; Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).

290 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008).

We first address Appellants’ argument that sanctions were not warranted because 

they had a good faith basis for filing the lien, i.e., to secure what they considered was a 

meritorious quantum meruit claim for legal services rendered by Ms. Sallee to the 

decedent during her life. 

Rule 11.03(1)(b), permits a court, on its own initiative, to issue an order describing 

conduct that appears to violate Rule 11.02 and directing a party to show cause why it has 

not violated the rule.14 The August 31, 2017 order gave Appellants notice of the conduct 

 

14 Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides in part pertinent to this appeal:

11.02. Representations to Court 

By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a 

pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying 

that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an 

inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause 

unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law 

or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law 

or the establishment of new law;
18

that the court determined warranted sanctions and allowed them ample time to provide a 

response to the show cause order; the September 25 order setting the amount of sanctions 

was duly entered, withg no response to the August 31 order being filed on behalf of 

Appellants. Six months later, Appellants filed a Rule 60.02 motion to set aside the 

September 25 order, which was granted by the trial court; after considering Appellants’ 

proof as to why sanctions were not warranted, the court reaffirmed the September 25 

order. 

 

(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if 

specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable 

opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denial of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so 

identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

11.03. Sanctions

If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that 

subdivision 11.02 has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated 

below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have 

violated subdivision 11.02 or are responsible for the violation. 

(1) How Initiated.

* * *

(b) On Court's Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing 

the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision 11.02 and directing an attorney, 

law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision 11.02 with respect 

thereto.

(2) Nature of Sanctions; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall 

be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct 

by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (a) and (b), the 

sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a 

penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an 

order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.

(a) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of 

subdivision 11.02(2).

(b) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded on the court's initiative unless the court 

issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims 

made by or against the party which is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

(3) Order. When imposing sanctions, the court shall describe the conduct determined to 

constitute a violation of this rule and explain the basis for the sanction imposed.

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11.03. Rule 11.03(2)(a) does not preclude the award against Ms. Sallee, inasmuch as she 

is a licensed attorney in the State of Tennessee, and subject to the requirements of the Rules of 

Professional Conduct, memorialized at Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, and since, at various times 

herein she was acting pro se. 
19

We find no violation of Rule 11 or abuse of the court’s discretion in either making 

the initial determination that sanctions were warranted or in the manner in which the 

amount of sanctions was set. First, the quantum meruit claim Ms. Sallee asserted was for 

services rendered in a life insurance proceeds matter that had nothing to do with the Pratt 

Lane property; the insurance matter was not a “right of action” to which the lien 

authorized by Tennessee Code Annotated section 23-3-10215 and -10316 would apply. 

Second, to the extent Ms. Sallee sought payment for services rendered in representing her 

mother in the life insurance matter, she should have done so as a creditor of the estate, 

pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 30-2-307.17 The trial court properly held 

that there was no legal basis for filing a lien to secure the quantum meruit claim, thereby 

requiring the Estate to seek a court order requiring Ms. Sallee to release the lien. 

There is likewise no merit to Appellants’ argument that the Rule 11.03(2)(b) 

prohibits the award of sanctions because “the dismissal of the lien was voluntary, and it 

occurred before the show cause order.” The lien was not a “claim” within the meaning of 

Rule 11.03(2)(b)18 and there was no dismissal of the lien, voluntary or involuntary; Ms. 

 

15

 Tennessee Code Annotated section 23-3-102 states:

Attorneys and solicitors of record who begin a suit shall have a lien upon the plaintiff’s or 

complainant’s right of action from the date of the filing of the suit.

16

 Tennessee Code Annotated section 23-3-103 states:

Any attorney or solicitor who is employed to prosecute a suit that has already been 

brought in any court of record shall have a lien upon the plaintiff’s right of action from 

the date of the attorney’s or solicitor’s employment in the case; provided, that the record 

of the case shall first be made to show such employment by notice upon the rule docket 

of such court, by a written memorandum filed with the papers in the case or by notice 

served upon the defendant in the case.

17

 Tennessee Code Annotated section 30-2-307(a)(1) states:

All claims against the estate arising from a debt of the decedent shall be barred unless 

filed within the period prescribed in the notice published or posted in accordance with § 

30-2-306(b).

18 Appellants conflate the meanings of “claim” and “lien.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11.03(2)(b). As this Court 

stated in Montpelier v. Moncier:

“Claim” or “claims” is commonly used to describe such an application for relief [within a 

lawsuit], and a party is permitted to state as many separate claims or defenses as he or she 

has in his or her pleading. . . .

[V]arious rules illustrate this construction of the word “claim” by referring to claim(s) as 

a part of a complaint or pleading and not constituting the pleading itself. See Tenn. R. 

Civ. P. 8.01 (“a pleading ... shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the claim 
20

Sallee was ordered to release the lien. 

Discerning no abuse of discretion in the court’s imposition of sanctions, we now 

turn to the amount awarded. The attorneys for the personal representative and the estate 

submitted detailed affidavits of the time they dedicated to resolving the issue of the lien 

filed against the 112 Pratt Lane Property; the court awarded fees equal to the amount 

incurred for getting the order to release the lien. The affidavits of counsel are sufficiently 

detailed as to both the work performed and time spent, and Appellants do not cite 

evidence that preponderates against the amount awarded. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

RICHARD H. DINKINS, JUDGE

 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Tenn. R. Civ. P. 10.02 (“[e]ach claim 

founded upon a separate transaction or occurrence ... shall be stated in a separate count ... 

whenever a separation facilitates the clear presentation of matters set forth”). See also

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02; 13.01, 13.05, 13.09; 18.01 and 18.02.

No. E2018-00448-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 990529, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2019) (quoting 

McCord v. HCA Health Serv’s. of Tennessee, Inc., No. M2016-00240-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 5416334, 

at *3, *4 n. 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2016) perm. app. denied (Jan. 19, 2017)). This is not a suit to 

recover damages but, rather, a proceeding to administer an estate; any “claim” that Ms. Sallee 

has in the proceeding is as creditor or beneficiary of the estate.