Gertrude Jackson and Josephine J. Johnson v. Helen Patton, of the Estate of Jennie Mai Jackson ( 1996 )

GERTRUDE JACKSON and )
JOSEPHINE J. JOHNSON, )
Petitioners/Appellees, )
) Williamson Chancery
) No. 22983
VS. )
) Appeal No.
) 01-A-01-9511-CH-00528
HELEN PATTON, Executrix of the )
Estate of Jennie Mai Jackson,
Deceased,
Respondent/Appellant.
)
)
)
FILED
May 8, 1996
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
AT FRANKLIN, TENNESSEE
HONORABLE HENRY DENMARK BELL, CHANCELLOR
SUSAN B. EVANS
Law Offices of Wm. D. Castleman, P.C.
213A Ward Circle
Brentwood, Tennessee 37027
WILLIAM D. CASTLEMAN
Law Offices of Wm. D. Castleman, P.C.
110 Glancy St., Suite 112
Goodlettsville, Tennessee 37072
DANIEL L. WISCHHOF
Wischhof & Allen, P.C.
110 Glancy St., Suite 109
Goodlettsville, Tennessee 37072
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONERS/APPELLEES
Joseph F. Welborn, III
BASS, BERRY & SIMS
2700 First American Center
Nashville, Tennessee 37238
DOUGLAS S. HALE
Hale & Hale
312 First Tennessee Bank Building
Franklin, Tennessee 37064
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT/APPELLANT
REVERSED, VACATED AND REMANDED
HENRY F. TODD
PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION
CONCUR:
SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE
BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
GERTRUDE JACKSON and )
JOSEPHINE J. JOHNSON, )
)
Petitioners/Appellees, )
) Williamson Chancery
) No. 22983
VS. )
) Appeal No.
) 01-A-01-9511-CH-00528
HELEN PATTON, Executrix of the )
Estate of Jennie Mai Jackson, )
Deceased, )
)
Respondent/Appellant. )
OPINION
The captioned executrix has appealed from a non-jury judgment of the Chancery
Court that a will dated April 6, 1989 is the true, whole and last will and testament of Jennie
Mai Jackson, deceased.
On May 18, 1994, a will executed by deceased on February 18, 1977, was admitted to
probate in the Chancery Court and the captioned executrix was designated to administer the
estate.
On November 8, 1994, the captioned petitioners filed a petition in Chancery Court
presenting a subsequent will of the deceased dated April 6, 1989, and praying that the
previous probate of the 1977 will be set aside and that 1989 will be declared to be the last and
effective will of deceased.
The executrix denied that the 1989 will was properly executed, and the cause
proceeded to trial without a jury. The order of the Chancery Court reads as follows:
This cause came on to be heard on the 7th day of August,
1995, before the Honorable Henry Denmark Bell, Chancellor,
upon the petition of Gertrude Jackson and Josephine J. Johnson
that the Last Will and Testament of Jennie Mai Jackson,
deceased, bearing the date of February 18, 1977, be set-aside
and that a later writing purported to be the Last Will and
-2-
Testament of Jennie Mai Jackson, deceased, be admitted to
probate.
Whereupon, the petitioners produced in open Court a paper
writing purporting to be the Last Will and Testament of Jennie
Mai Jackson, deceased, said paper bearing date of April 6,
1989; having the mark of Jennie Mai Jackson signed thereto as
testatrix; being subscribed by Elizabeth Carothers and John H.
Carothers as attesting witnesses; naming Gertrude Jackson and
Josephine J. Johnson as Co-Executors.
And, it appearing to the Court from the testimony of the
aforesaid parties and their witnesses in open Court and upon
affidavit as authorized by and in accordance with Tennessee
Code annotated Section 32-2-110 that Elizabeth Carothers and
John H. Carothers did subscribe his/her respective name as an
attesting witness to the said paper writing; that the said paper
writing was written in the lifetime of Jennie Mai Jackson,
deceased, and published, signed and subscribed by her in the
presence of the attesting witnesses; that the said Jennie Mai
Jackson was then of sound mind; and at her request, said
attesting witnesses signed said paper writing in her presence
and in the presence of each other on April 6, 1989.
And, it further appearing to the Court from testimony
produced in open Court that said paper writing bears the true
mark of the said Jennie Mai Jackson.
It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
by the Court that the Last Will and Testament of Jennie Mai
Jackson, deceased, bearing the date of April 6, 1989, is the true,
whole and Last Will and Testament of Jennie Mai Jackson,
deceased. The costs of this action are taxed to the estate of
Jennie Mai Jackson. The matter of attorney fees in this action
is reserved to the Probate Court of Williamson County,
Tennessee.
This cause is remanded to the Probate Court of Williamson
County, Tennessee, for further proceedings consistent with this
order.
It appears that the Chancery Court has probate jurisdiction under T.C.A. §16-16-201,
so that the remand to the Probate Court in this instance would be to the Probate Division of
the Chancery Court.
The pleadings in the present case appear to present an issue of devisavit vel non to be
resolved by a contest to be certified to the Circuit Court for resolution under T.C.A. §§32-4-
101, et seq. Even though the jurisdiction of Circuit Court of will contests is exclusive,
-3-
T.C.A. §16-10-103, Clark v. Hefley, 34 Tenn. App. 389, 238 S.W.2d 513 (1950), the
jurisdictional question was waived by failure to object. T.C.A. §16-11-102.
The single issue presented on appeal is:
Whether the Chancellor erred in ruling that the Last Will and
Testament of Jennie Mae Jackson dated April 6, 1989 was
properly executed as required by T.C.A. § 32-1-104.
T.C.A. Section 32-1-104 provides:
Will other than holographic or nuncupative. - The execution
of a will, other than a holographic or nuncapative will, must be
by the signature of the testator and of at least two (2) witnesses
as follows:
(1) The testator shall signify to the attesting witnesses that the
instrument is his will and either:
(A) Himself sign;
(B) Acknowledge his signature already made; or
(C) At his direction and in his presence have
someone else sign his name for him; and
(D) In any of the above cases the act must be
done in the presence of two (2) or more attesting
witnesses.
(2) The attesting witnesses must sign:
(A) In the presence of the testator; and
(B) In the presence of each other. [Acts
1941, ch. 125 § 4; C. Supp. 1950, § 8098.4;
T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 32-104.] (Emphasis
supplied.)
The first page of the 1989 will bears the following notation:
Page 1 of My Last Will and Testament X
The second page of said will contains the following:
I am signing this Will on April 6, 1989
X (her mark)
Jennie Mae Jackson
This will was signed before both of us. We knew that it was a
will, and we were requested to be witnesses. We both
witnessed the will and signed in Page 2 of My Last Will and
Testament X.
Page 2 of My Last Will X
-4-
The third page of the will contains the following:
the presence of the person making the will and in the presence
of each other on the above date
/s/ Elizabeth Carothers
/s/ John H. Carothers
Page 3 of My Last Will and Testament X
The fourth page attached to the will contains the following:
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF TENNESSEE
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
We swear that the above will was signed by Jennie Mae
Jackson before us. It was said to be a Will and we were
requested to be witnesses. We witnessed the Will in her
presence and in the presence of each other. Jennie Mae
Jackson was more than 18 years old and was of sound mind
when the Will was signed.
/s/ Elizabeth Carothers
/s/ John H. Carothers
Sworn to and subscribed to before me this 6th day of April,
1989.
/s/ T. Vance Little
Notary public
My Commission Expires: 1-14-92
The executrix insisted to the Trial Court and insists to this Court that there is no
evidence that the testatrix signified to the attesting witnesses that the instrument was her will
or that the X mark was her signature or that it was placed on the will in the presence of the
witnesses.
A review of the evidence is required to resolve the issue stated.
-5-
Vance Little, an attorney, testified that he prepared the will in question, that he saw
the testatrix place her mark on the will, and that the two attesting witnesses were present
when she did so.
Gertrude Jackson testified that she, the attesting witnesses and others were present
when she saw the testatrix place her mark upon the will.
Josephine Johnson testified that she and the attesting witnesses and others were
present when she saw testatrix place her mark on the will.
John H. Carothers testified that he was unable to read, that he recognized the
signature of himself and his wife on the will, but that he had no recollection of the occasion
when the will was signed, that he did not see the will signed, and that he was not told the
contents of the document.
Elizabeth Carothers testified that the signature on the will appeared to be hers, but
that she had no memory of signing it. However, she testified verbatim:
I don’t remember signing this thing. As I said, I remember
having did it, but I don’t remember.
I remember going to her house, but I don’t know what took
place.
Well, when he came out of there, he was telling what it said,
but, other than that, I didn’t know.
From the foregoing testimony, it is seen that there is evidence that the testator signed
the will in the presence of the attesting witnesses that the attesting witnesses signed the
attestation clause which states that they knew that the document was a will. The affidavit
attached to the will states that “it was said to be a will and we were requested to be
witnesses,” but it does not state who said it was a will or who requested them to be witnesses.
-6-
No evidence is found that the testatrix signified to the attesting witnesses that the
instrument was her will. This is an indispensable, statutory part of the attestation of a
witnessed will.
In Lawrence v. Lawrence, 35 Tenn. App. 648, 250 S.W.2d 781 (1952), this Court
held that, where there was no evidence that the testatrix signified to the attesting witnesses
that the instrument was the will of testatrix, the instrument was not entitled to probate. To
the same effect are Cooper v. Austin, Tenn. App. 1992, 837 S.W.2d 606 and In Re: Estate of
Bradley, Tenn. App. 1991, 817 S.W.2d 320.
The judgment of the Trial Court is reversed and vacated. All costs, including costs of
this appeal, are taxed against petitioners. The petition of the captioned petitioners is
dismissed and Trial Court costs are taxed against the petitioners and their surety. The cause
is remanded to the Trial Court for entry and enforcement of a judgment in conformity with
this opinion.
Reversed, Vacated and Remanded.
_______________________________________
HENRY F. TODD
PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION
CONCUR:
_____________________________________
SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE
_____________________________________
BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
-7-