Estate of Burchfiel v. First United Methodist Church of Sevierville
| Decision Date | 13 June 1996 |
| Citation | 933 S.W.2d 481 |
| Parties | The ESTATE OF William Wesley BURCHFIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF SEVIERVILLE, Tennessee; the University of Tennessee at Knoxville; Walters State Community College; Tennessee Board of Regents of the University and Community College Systems of Tennessee; and Sevier County, Tennessee, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Anne M. McKinney, Knoxville, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jerry H. McCarter, Gatlinburg, for Defendant-Appellee, Sevier County, Tennessee.
Christine Modisher, Nashville, for Defendants-Appellees, Walters State Community College, Tennessee Board of Regents.
Beauchamp E. Brogan and J. Robert Walker, Knoxville, for Appellee-Defendant, The University of Tennessee.
In this action to construe a will, the Trial Court determined that the Walters State Community College's proposal to build a branch campus would meet the conditions set forth in the Testator's will, and broadly held that "any existing entity" under the control of the Tennessee Board of Regents could be used to meet the conditions set forth in the will.
William Wesley Burchfiel of Sevierville, Sevier County, Tennessee, died on December 1, 1993, and his will was admitted to probate.
The dispute concerns the interpretation of section VI(B)(1) of decedent's will. It reads in part B. My Trustee shall use the entire amount of my residuary estate for the following purposes and under the following conditions:
1. To establish and build a community college campus on approximately sixty-five (65) acres of land within the confines of Sevier County, Tennessee provided the following conditions can be accomplished:
(a) The college must be an independent, free standing and state supported regional community college on the Sevier County campus.
(b) Establishment of the Sevier County County campus shall be approved as a part of the State University and Campommunity College System as governed by the Tennessee Board of Regents.
(c) Any decisions with regard to the operation continuation, termination and/or establishment and expansion and development of the community college campus shall be approved by the Tennessee Board of Regents as a part of the State University and Community College System of Tennessee.
(d) The Cities of Sevier County, the County, its private citizens and other public or private foundations shall match on a dollar for dollar basis the amount funded for this trust to be used as construction funds for the Sevier County Campus of the community college system ...
(h) It is my preference that the community college campus be named the "Great Smoky Mountains Community College" or some similar name suitable to reflect the sentiments of the Sevier County region. This regional concept would preclude the use of a name like "Walters" which does not reflect the entire region.
The will then states should the matching money not be raised within the allotted time and according to his terms, the donations are to be returned to the contributors. The bequest would then go toward constructing a new geography building at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.
Walters State Community College proposed a plan to build a branch campus in Sevierville, and insists that its plan qualified it to receive the bequest. The Trial Court determined the will did not require the establishment of a new community college. He found that any existing school under the control of the Tennessee Board of Regents could use the estate to build a Sevier County campus, and interpreted the phrase "the college shall be independent, free standing ..." as a reference to the school accepting the gift, not as a description of a new institution that would be created.
The basic rule in the construction of wills is for the court to determine the intent of the testators. Stickley v. Carmichael, 850 S.W.2d 127 (Tenn.1992). The Executor urges the court to hear evidence that would clarify that intent. He wishes to offer testimony of Burchfiel's family and friends who insist that decedent did not want his money used for a branch campus of Walters State.
Parole evidence is admissible to explain a latent ambiguity. Stickley. A latent ambiguity is found where
the equivocality of expression or obscurity of intention does not arise from the words themselves, but from the ambiguous state of extrinsic circumstances to which the words of the instrument refer, and which is susceptible of explanation by the mere development of extraneous facts, without altering or adding to the written language, or requiring more to be understood thereby than will fairly comport with the ordinary or legal sense of the words and phrases made use of.
Weatherhead v. Sewell, 28 Tenn. (9 Humph.) 272, 295 (1848).
A patent ambiguity, for which extrinsic evidence is not admissible, is one which is
produced by the uncertainty, contradictoriness, or deficiency of the language of an instrument, so that no discovery of facts, or proof of declarations, can restore the doubtful or smothered sense without adding ideas which the actual words will not themselves sustain ... ambiguity that may be removed by parol evidence is not a doubt thrown upon the intention of the party in the instrument by extrinsic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hargis v. Fuller, No. M2003-02691-COA-R3-CV (TN 2/7/2005), M2003-02691-COA-R3-CV.
...by a further investigation of facts or matter extrinsic. . . . Weatherhead, 28 Tenn. (9 Hum.) at 296; see also In re Estate of Burchfiel, 933 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). A latent ambiguity is generally found to exist where the words of a written instrument are plain and intelligi......
-
Holder v. Serodino
...fairly comport with the ordinary or legal sense of the words and phrases made use of."Estate of Burchfiel v. First United Methodist Church of Sevierville, 933 S.W.2d 481, 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (quoting Weatherhead v. Sewell, 28 Tenn. (9 Hum.) 272, 295 (1848)). A patent ambiguity is "'on......
-
Mitchell v. Chance
...be admissible to remove a latent ambiguity in the deed. Stickley v. Carmichael, 850 S.W.2d at 132; Estate of Burchfiel v. First United Methodist Church, 933 S.W.2d 481, 482 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996). A latent ambiguity is found the equivocality of expression, or obscurity of intention, does not ar......
-
Perdue v. Estate of Jackson
...by a further investigation of facts or matter extrinsic . . . .Weatherhead, 28 Tenn. (9 Hum.) at 296; see also In re Estate of Burchfiel, 933 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). A latent ambiguity is generally found to exist where the words of a written instrument are plain and intelligi......
-
My Will Be Done: Accommodating the Erring and the Atypical Testator
...Bob Jones Univ. v. Strandell, 543 S.E.2d 251 (S.C. Ct. App. 2001); In re Estate of Burchfiel v. First United Methodist Church, 933 S.W.2d 481 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). 31. See THIRD RESTATEMENT § 12.1 cmt. d. 32. See, e.g., Hoover v. Roberts, 58 P.2d 83 (Kan. 1936) (distinguishing reformation ......