Mike Locke and Cvan Avian v. The Estate of Thomas W. Schlater
M2012-02504-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2014Background
- David Rose died at 63 on April 15, 2010; Locke and Avian are putative nonmarital sons claiming paternity and interests in Rose’s estate.
- Three linked actions: (1) probate of Rose’s will in solemn form; (2) challenge to the 2006 David Rose Trust Agreement; (3) petition to establish Rose as their father.
- Probate case: Locke/Avian objected to probate, seeking trust interpretation rather than invalidating the will; they later withdrew the objection.
- Trust case: Locke/Avian sued trustees/beneficiaries to set aside 2006 Trust; asserted they are surviving issue if Rose was their father.
- Paternity case: Locke/Avian sought adjudication of paternity after death; executrix moved to dismiss as untimely; later summary judgment motions were struck or denied.
- Court’s resolution: affirm in two appeals (probate and paternity-related dismissal), reverse and remand in trust case to determine surviving-issue status and standing
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Locke/Avian have standing to challenge the 2006 Trust | Locke/Avian are surviving issue if paternity proven | Standing requires adjudicated paternity; plaintiffs lack timely adjudication | Yes; standing exists for challenge to the 2006 Trust |
| Whether time limits for asserting paternity apply to trust challenge | Time limits for intestate inheritance apply to paternity | Trust actions are not governed by intestate-succession limits | Time limits do not apply to challenges to the trust; timely to proceed |
| Whether the paternity assertion in probate was timely and meaningful | July 13, 2010 objection suffices to assert paternity | Paternity adjudication not sought during life; probate void of paternity issue | Paternity assertion moot in probate; petition properly dismissed for timing |
| Proper reach of Bilbrey/Glanton in standing and inheritance via trust | Bilbrey/Glanton support standing to inherit through nonmarital status | Those rules apply to intestate inheritance, not to trust validity | Bilbrey/Glanton do not bar standing in trust proceeding; court must consider surviving-issue status |
| Remedy and scope in trust case on appeal | If standing found, remedy includes relief in trust validity | Summary judgment and dismissal appropriate given procedural posture | Reverse in trust case to allow proof of surviving-issue and standing; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bilbrey v. Smithers, 937 S.W.2d 803 (Tenn. 1996) (ties paternity time limits to creditors’ deadlines in intestate succession)
- Glanton v. Lord, 183 S.W.3d 391 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (nonmarital children may assert paternity in proceedings giving notice to heirs)
- Presley v. Hanks, 782 S.W.2d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (definition of "issue" includes nonmarital children)
- Third National Bank in Nashville v. Nashville Trust Co., 232 S.W.2d 7 (Tenn. 1950) (trust actions; limits run differently from personal actions)
- Jennings v. Bridgeford, 403 S.W.2d 289 (Tenn. 1966) (standing to challenge a trust if significant share would pass upon set aside)