In Re ESTATE OF Raymond L. SMALLMAN
2013 Tenn. LEXIS 213
| Tenn. | 2013Background
- Raymond Smallman died July 7, 2009 after secretly marrying Linda Caraway June 24, 2009; Smallman had two adult sons who challenged the marriage and the validity of a lost will naming Caraway; the will and Caraway’s status were alleged to be influenced by Caraway’s finances and real estate holdings; trial court admitted evidence about Blair will and Caraway’s real property; jury ruled for the sons on all issues; Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment; the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to address standing, admissibility of the Blair will and Caraway real estate evidence, and materiality of the evidence to the verdict; the Court reverses and remands for a new trial on all issues due to evidentiary errors.
- IssuesLabelledAsSingleSectionInOriginalTextButSeparatedForClarityAndBrevityOnlyIfNeededNoteThisSectionContainsIssuesOnly
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of the Smallman sons to contest the marriage | Smallman | Caraway | Waived; no statutory standing issue raised below |
| Admissibility of Blair will evidence | Sons showed common scheme to unduly influence Caraway’s family | Evidence admissible to show relevance/intent | Errored; Blair will improperly admitted; prejudicial |
| Admissibility of Caraway real estate holdings evidence | Financial condition relevant to undue influence/wealth | Irrelevant/prejudicial; should be excluded | Errored; evidence improperly admitted and prejudicial |
| Harmful vs harmless error in evidentiary rulings | Erroneous evidence likely affected verdict | Harmless in light of other evidence | Harmful; reversal and new trial warranted |
| Sufficiency of remaining evidence to void marriage | Clear/convincing proof of incapacity | Insufficient evidence | Pretermitted; case remanded for new trial; final disposition governed by new proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Shell Oil Co., 196 S.W.3d 747 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2005) (standing and subject-matter jurisdiction implications in appellate review)
- Correll v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 207 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2006) (waiver of issues not raised in trial court; appellate review limits)
- Osborn v. Marr, 127 S.W.3d 737 (Tenn. 2004) (standing vs. jurisdiction; interwoven concepts depending on statute)
- Keith v. Murfreesboro Livestock Market, Inc., 780 S.W.2d 751 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1989) (extrinsic transactions; common scheme/plan evidentiary limits)
- Estate of Elam, 738 S.W.2d 169 (Tenn. 1987) (testamentary capacity focus at time of will execution)
- Gomez v. State, 367 S.W.3d 237 (Tenn. 2012) (harmless error standard for evidentiary reversal and remand)