In Re: The Estate of Wanda Jeanne Starkey, 556 S.W.3d 811

Wanda Jeanne Starkey executed wills in 1991 (favoring her children if husband predeceased) and 2009 (expressly revoking prior wills and disinheriting her children, naming LLS as contingent beneficiary).
Starkey died in 2013 after her husband predeceased her; both the 1991 and 2009 wills were presented for probate by competing parties.
Drema Louck (daughter) filed a will contest alleging Starkey attempted to revoke the 2009 will by directing another person to destroy it in her presence, and that person fraudulently destroyed a different document so Starkey mistakenly believed the will had been destroyed.
The Administrator and LLS moved to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), arguing revocation methods are exclusively statutory (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 32-1-201, 32-1-202) and the will was not actually destroyed.
The circuit court dismissed Louck’s contest, holding the statutory revocation methods are exclusive. Louck appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tennessee revocation statutes preclude common-law revocation by fraud (i.e., testator’s mistaken-but-intentional destruction of a document believed to be the will)	Louck: destruction of a document the testator believed to be her will, done at her direction in her presence, revokes the will even if fraud prevented destruction of the actual will	Administrator/LLS: § 32-1-201 and § 32-1-202(e) enumerate exclusive methods; no statutory method here because the 2009 will was not literally destroyed	Court of Appeals: statutes do not abrogate common-law rule; Louck pleaded facts sufficient to state a claim (reversed and remanded)
Whether the amended notice alleged sufficient facts to survive a Rule 12.02(6) motion	Louck: alleged intent to revoke, direction to destroy, belief the will was destroyed, and fraud by another causing the mistake	Administrator/LLS: allegations concede will was not destroyed; therefore no statutory revocation and no claim	Held for Louck: under common law, fraud that prevents destruction of the actual will does not defeat revocation when the testator believed the will was destroyed; pleadings suffice

Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422 (Tenn. 2011) (standard for Rule 12.02(6) motion review)
Trau-Med of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 S.W.3d 691 (Tenn. 2002) (pleadings construed liberally on dismissal)
Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919 (Tenn. 1999) (plaintiff survives dismissal unless no set of facts can support relief)
In re Estate of Boote, 198 S.W.3d 699 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (discussing fraud and failed destruction in revocation context)
Billington v. Jones, 66 S.W. 1127 (Tenn. 1901) (common-law principle that a testator’s belief that the will was destroyed — even if another paper was burned by fraud — can effect revocation)
In re Estate of Perigen, 653 S.W.2d 717 (Tenn. 1983) (distinguishing express revocation and revocation by changed circumstances)