Court Opinion

ID: 9748563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:05:48.52834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:36.892638
License: Public Domain

OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
The appellant Gerald Farrar has filed a petition for rehearing pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. R. App. P. 39. He contends, under subsection (a)(3) of the rule, that the Court, in its opinion, “overlook[ed]” two material facts. First, the appellant argues that we overlooked language on the application signed by the appellant reciting that “information and answers” on the application were being furnished “on behalf of all applicants and residents of the household.” We did not overlook this fact. This language does not change the fact that Gary Vollheim’s life estate was not reported on the application despite a question which should have elicited this information. The language on the application, upon which the appellant relies, does not, in any way, convert a clear misrepresentation into an accurate representation.
The appellant also contends that we overlooked the fact that it is was the intention of Mr. Vollheim’s father, and the understanding of the parties, that Mr. Voll-heim, while possessing a life estate, was not to exclude the remainderman-the appellant-from remaining on the property during Mr. Vollheim’s lifetime. Our response to this is that the recorded deed reflects a life estate in Gary Vollheim without restriction. This means that, as a matter of law, he had all the rights of a life tenant, including the right to exclusive possession. This is what we said and this was an accurate statement. It is not contrary to the record before us.
The petition for rehearing is DENIED with costs on appeal associated with the petition taxed to the appellant and his surety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.