In Re Estate of Alfred C. Diviney, Sr., M2017-00739-COA-R3-CV

Decedent Alfred C. Diviney, Sr. died intestate; his widow Audrey was appointed administratrix of his estate. Frances Diviney (mother of Alfred’s children) filed a large child-support claim against the estate and later obtained judgment on that claim.
Audrey filed a Petition to Award Exempt Property and Application for Homestead; the parties entered an agreed order settling that petition and stating they compromised and settled “all claims that the Petitioner asserted or might have asserted in the Petition.” Audrey’s petition was dismissed with prejudice.
After the agreed order, Audrey filed a petition for a year’s support and elective share. Frances pleaded res judicata/claim preclusion and moved to dismiss.
The probate court granted Frances’s motion, concluding the agreed order was a final judgment that precluded Audrey from pursuing claims that were or could have been asserted in the prior petition.
Audrey appealed, arguing the elective-share and year’s-support claims arise under different statutes and were not the same cause of action as exempt property/homestead, and that the agreed order was ambiguous or not intended to bar those claims.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the claims arose from the same transaction (distribution of Alfred’s estate), the agreed order unambiguously covered claims ‘‘asserted or might have asserted,’’ and res judicata barred Audrey’s later petition.

Issue	Audrey's Argument	Frances' Argument	Held
Whether the agreed order bars Audrey’s petition for a year’s support and elective share under res judicata	The elective-share and year’s-support claims arise under different statutes and are not the same cause of action as exempt property/homestead; the agreed order is ambiguous and did not intend to preclude these claims	The agreed order settled all claims Audrey ‘‘asserted or might have asserted’’ in the exempt-property/homestead petition; the later petition arises from the same transaction (estate distribution) and is thus claim-precluded	Affirmed: res judicata applies; the agreed order was final and unambiguously precluded re-litigation of claims that were or could have been asserted

Jackson v. Smith, 387 S.W.3d 485 (Tenn. 2012) (articulates Tennessee res judicata/claim-preclusion elements and policy reasons)
Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2009) (adopts transactional approach for determining same cause of action)
In re Estate of Ridley, 270 S.W.3d 37 (Tenn. 2008) (explains when an order is a final judgment resolving all issues)
Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary-judgment standard on allocation of burden of production)
Malone & Hyde Food Servs. v. Parson, 642 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982) (unspoken subjective intent is irrelevant where contract language is unambiguous)