Dorothy J. Ethridge v. The Estate of Bobby Ray Ethridge, Anthony Ray Ethridge
2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 517
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Dorothy J. Ethridge (claimant) and Bobby Ray Ethridge (decedent) married in 1999; they signed a prenuptial agreement the same month waiving her claims to his separate property and requiring any modification to be in writing.
- Decedent died in January 2008; his will was probated and the executor published notice to creditors in March 2008.
- Ethridge filed a claim against the estate in June 2008 for $200,000, alleging Decedent induced her to quit work and promised to provide for her (an oral post‑nuptial promise/mutual agreement during the marriage).
- The estate filed an exception to the claim on August 27, 2008, after the statutory deadline (the last day to file exceptions was August 6, 2008).
- The probate court dismissed Ethridge’s claim as void/fraudulent based on the prenuptial agreement and for lack of a written contract; the court also denied elective‑share relief; Ethridge appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the claim was not void on its face and the estate’s untimely exception was ineffective under Tenn. Code Ann. § 30‑2‑316; the case was remanded for enforcement of the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Ethridge's Argument | Estate's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the estate’s untimely exception bars enforcement of claimant’s timely filed claim under Tenn. Code Ann. § 30‑2‑316 | The claim was prima facie valid; absent a timely exception the claim becomes judgment against the estate | The prenuptial agreement rendered the claim void/unenforceable, so no timely exception was necessary | Held for Ethridge: claim not void on its face; estate’s failure to timely except is fatal under § 30‑2‑316 |
| Whether the prenuptial agreement made the claim void on its face | The prenuptial agreement did not make the subsequent oral agreement void on its face; validity is a merits issue | Prenuptial agreement waived her rights and made claim unenforceable | Held for Ethridge: prenup raised a substantive defense to be litigated by timely exception, not a facial defect |
| Whether absence of a written contract made the claim void | Oral agreement supported by consideration (she gave up earnings) — enforceable unless statute of frauds applies | No written contract; claim therefore void or fraudulent | Held for Ethridge: lack of a written contract does not automatically void a claim unless statute of frauds applies; enforceability is for adjudication after a timely exception |
| Whether the probate court properly denied elective‑share relief (procedural waiver) | (Not presented as an appellate issue) | Estate argued prenuptial limits further recovery | Not addressed on appeal — issue deemed waived by appellate briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Hafley, 226 S.W.2d 308 (Tenn. 1950) (failure to except to a claim admits its justness unless claim is void on its face)
- Needham v. Moore, 292 S.W.2d 720 (Tenn. 1956) (untimely exceptions generally bar objections except for fraud or equitable matters)
- Miller v. Morelock, 206 S.W.2d 427 (Tenn. 1947) (void instruments are treated as never having existed)
- Estate of Green v. Carthage General Hosp., Inc., 246 S.W.3d 582 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (definition of "claim" against an estate and distinction from civil pleadings)
- Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913 (Tenn. 2000) (statutes governing claims against estates construed to advance remedy and dispense with formal pleadings)
- State v. Ingram, 331 S.W.3d 746 (Tenn. 2011) (standard of review guidance for mixed questions of law and fact)
- In re Estate of Haskins, 224 S.W.3d 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (absence of writing does not automatically render an agreement unenforceable unless statute of frauds controls)
- Champion v. CLC of Dyersburg, LLC, 359 S.W.3d 161 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (issues not raised in appellate statement of issues may be waived)