In Re: Estate of Vida Mae McCartt
E2016-02497-COA-R3-CV
Tenn. Ct. App.Jul 25, 2017Background
- Vida Mae McCartt died testate in 2012; her 1994 will left specific bequests and divided the remainder among surviving children and heirs of two predeceased sons.
- Grandchildren (including Appellees Collins, Wilson, and Joe McCartt) filed a will contest; parties mediated and entered a settlement incorporated by the chancery court on November 20, 2012 allocating one-fifth shares among groups of heirs and including indemnity language for unknown heirs of J.D. McCartt, Sr.
- Sara Shannon Armes (Appellant), previously adjudicated a biological child of J.D. McCartt, Sr., filed suit in 2013 seeking a share of the portion awarded to J.D. McCartt’s heirs and alleging defendants fraudulently concealed her existence to exclude her from the settlement.
- The trial court initially dismissed her complaint; this court (McCartt I) vacated dismissal and remanded, noting factual questions about notice and whether settling heirs acted in good faith.
- On remand, an evidentiary hearing produced testimony that Armes knew of the probate, had an attorney who was aware of the will contest, and elected not to participate; the trial court found no fraud, misrepresentation, or bad faith and dismissed Armes’ complaint.
- This appeal challenges (1) whether Armes had sufficient notice to participate, (2) whether the trial court complied with McCartt I by addressing good faith, and (3) whether Appellees committed fraud or misrepresentation; the Court of Appeals affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Armes had sufficient notice of the will contest to participate | Armes says she did not learn of the contest/mediation until after settlement and therefore had no opportunity to join | Defendants say Armes and her counsel knew of the probate and contest; she chose to "wait and see" and did not join | Court held evidence supports trial court: Armes had sufficient knowledge or opportunity and elected not to participate |
| Whether trial court addressed good-faith requirement from Petty v. Call | Armes contends the court failed to make an explicit good-faith finding as required by McCartt I | Defendants say the court’s findings that there was no subversion or intent to exclude supports an inference of good faith | Court held inference of good faith is supported by the record and trial court did not deviate from mandate |
| Whether Appellees engaged in fraud or misrepresentation to exclude Armes | Armes alleges contestants knowingly misrepresented heirs and omitted her to deprive her of estate share | Defendants maintain they did not owe notice to nonparticipating heirs, mediation was court-ordered among contestants, and no deceptive acts occurred | Court held Armes failed to prove fraud: omission and lack of notice alone are insufficient and evidence does not preponderate against trial court finding of no fraud |
| Whether settlement language (indemnity and named heirs) barred Armes' claim | Armes argues language was designed to preclude her claim and exclude her name despite adjudicated paternity | Defendants argue language indemnified other heirs from claims by unknown heirs and listed only participating heirs; it did not bar claims by nonparties | Court held language did not preclude Armes from suing; it protected participating heirs and did not evidence bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Petty v. Call, 599 S.W.2d 791 (Tenn. 1980) (nonparticipating heirs do not benefit from good-faith settlement of a will contest; heirs may join, oppose, or stand aloof)
- Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96 (Tenn. 2015) (standard for when evidence preponderates against a trial court’s factual finding)
- McGarity v. Jerrolds, 429 S.W.3d 562 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review for bench trials: de novo with presumption of correctness on factual findings)