WPCAp %Abt@yJrʑS豖tA&Ŭ2s.Ю'm-u%<`['$/>IDoϙ|+ Xnּ<@Qy238ug;Pp^{eʲ?2ZU@Evazl[B^B8E:?Oށwb @f+)9cq3.7E"" bȓユ{h-p8aIq|'.%L!۳Ќ@jޣҽrqحWHO Y:TBGJJduM-{]\YQe ["lg|]reȳȞĂ;s$v=eHĝe }X.`BcD>I׭DP#% %(^ ( 0(U"NO)w)4) z)/*++ m+ 0D)+m+3,,-UN.N..S.E(1(1*1 .4==> 0U? 0? 0@ 0A 0FB 0B 0C 0_D 0E 0E 0lF 0=G 0G 0H 0DI 0I 0JbK 0K 0K 0lL 0:M 0M 0N 08O 0O 0nP 0Q 0Q 0S 0S 0T 0U 0V 0W 0vX 0XY 0Z 02Z 0[ 0:\ 0YL\ 0_\ 0 ] 0^ 0_ B*a D/a 0a D/c 0$d 0d 06e 0f 0:'g Bag 0^~g 0g D3h D-h 0Kh 0<7i ASsii 0j 0DlU*m 1u.m 72mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 0NoHP LaserJet 4250 PCL 60f3  (l{$..8]tdd8      ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=M3B011C2 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular I R$      4  I  _Asexplainedinouroriginalopinion,decidingwhetherthecourseofproceedingsinthetrialcourtamounted 8 totheinitiationofawillcontestisaquestionoflawwhichthiscourtreviewsdenovo.InreEstateofBoote,2005WL  2739287,at*11(citingInreWillofAmbrister,205Tenn.at743-46,330S.W.2dat333-35;Jenkinsv.Jenkins,168  Tenn.at297,77S.W.2dat806).  R$      3  I  _OurconclusionthatMs._Boote_spetitionfordeclaratoryjudgmentwasthefunctionalequivalentofanotice 8 ofcontestdoesnotprovideabasisforarguingthatthefilingofthepetitiontriggeredthe NoContestClauseinthefirst  codicil.Ms.BootewasnotattemptingtoundermineMr._Boote_swillorthefirstcodicilwhenshefiledthepetition.  Rather,shewasendeavoringtomakesurethatallofMr._Boote_stestamentarydocumentswerebeforethecourt. R$      5  I  _Werewetotakeupthisquestion,wewouldconcludethatthetrialcourtcommittedreversibleerroratthispoint 8 aswell.Thetrialcourtconcludedthatprobateinsolemnform trumpstheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureandthat  theusualstandardsapplicabletopostjudgmentmotionsdonotapplytoordersofprobateinsolemnformbasedonthe  TennesseeSupremeCourtsdecisionsinRolandv.Weakley,208Tenn.444,346S.W.2d578(1961),andJenningsv. L Bridgeford,218Tenn.287,403S.W.2d289(1966).ThesedecisionspredatethecourtsadoptionoftheTennessee H RulesofCivilProcedurein1970.Therulesprovidethat [s]ubjecttoexceptionsasarestatedinparticularrules,the   RulesofCivilProcedureshallgovernprocedureinthecircuitorchancerycourtsinallcivilactions.Tenn.R.Civ.P.  1(emphasisadded).Thereareno exceptionsstatedinanyparticularruleforinsolemnformprobateproceedingsas  \ such,andRule66affirmativelystatesthattherulesapplytoallactionsinwhichtheappointmentofareceiverissought. X  Tenn.R.Civ.P.66;seealsoJudicialConferenceAdvisoryCommitteeonFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,Preliminary    DraftofProposedStyleRevisionoftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,Rule66,at171(February2005).The     TennesseeSupremeCourthasheldthatexecutorsandadministratorsinvolvedinprobateproceedingsfallwithinthe 8 purviewofRule66.InreEstateofBarnhill,62S.W.3dat144;seealsoInreEstateofBarnwell,1998WL755011,  at*45.Thus,theportionsofRolandv.WeakleyandJenningsv.Bridgefordonwhichthetrialcourtreliedhavebeen  abrogatedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourt.Amotionforpostjudgmentrelieffromanorderofprobateinsolemnform L mustbeevaluatedundertheusualstandardsofTenn.R.Civ.P.59and60,andthetrialcourterredinfailingtodoso H initsevaluationofMs.Bootesmotionforpostjudgmentrelief. R$      1  I  _RehgBr.ofAppelleesHelenBooteShiversandLindaBoote,at13. R$      2  I  _RehgBr.ofAppelleesHelenBooteShiversandLindaBoote,at11.*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   - -(&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKc<6X9`(Courier NewKSd\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kc<6X9`(Courier NewKSd\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Kc<6X9`(Courier NewKSd\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7N(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?e%2A`Arial?  Sd\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dM)1dxd<:zTop of For7P(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?e%2A`Arial?  Sd\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  M)2dxd0KS.SampleKc<6X9`(Courier NewKSd\  `&Times New RomanS(G2$ {!.8Wdd8           0  I0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKc<6X9`(Courier NewKSd\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable d: 8HTML MarkupB      (3$ {!.8Wdd8       VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  2 0CommentB  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ {!.8Wdd8       ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK&'()*+,- 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)fi) reaffirm[edRehgBarnhillBarnwellMobleyIn InAmbristerMurrell S.W.NatlScribnerSeilazBearmanCamatsosLillardBooteBussart P.J.PritchardGerritsenmisperceivesTolliverHigdonWeakleyBridgefords]ubject(O$ {!.8Wdd8       _TRX3'LetterX3' Letter3'Letter    _3'LetterT8W8 XXdd8  @ ^PWINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE 8 @kk$ATNASHVILLE#W^P|#Ԉ ^& X XW #WXX ,#  InreESTATEOFJOSEPHOWENBOOTE,JR.X XW  \$ s#WXX #X XW@  ChanceryCourtforMarshallCounty \ $ @FF&No.12099 H  @*AV) ` dE< ` A߈    @2 2 No.M200202234_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember20,_2005_Ԁ   AV) ` dE<` A    #WXX #X X.WWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,P.J.,M.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichPatriciaJ.   CottrellandFrankG.Clement,Jr.,JJ.,joined.  #WXX B#X XW#WXX G#X XW@   OPINIONONPETITIONFORREHEARING #WXX #Ԉ R X XW  OnOctober21,2005,thiscourtissuedanopinionvacatingthetrialcourtsDecember14, P 2001orderadmittingJosephOwenBoote,Jr.swillandfirsttwocodicilstoprobateinsolemnform. t< InreEstateofBoote,No.M200202234COAR3CV,2005WL2739287,at*21(Tenn.Ct.App. `( Oct.21,2005).Weinstructedthetrialcourtonremandtodeterminefirstwhetherthethirdcodicil L toMr.Booteswillwasproperlyexecuted,andthen,ifthetrialcourtdeterminedthatitwas,to 8 conductfurtherproceedingspreliminarytoawillcontest.InreEstateofBoote,2005WL2739287, $ at*21.OnOctober31,2005,Mr.Bootesdaughters,HelenBooteShiversandLindaBoote  Gerritsen,filedatimelypetitionforrehearing,andonNovember3,2005,weenteredanorder  requestingsupplementalbriefingononeoftheissuesraisedinthepetition.Ms.ShiversandMs.  Gerritsen,aswellasMarthaM.Boote,Mr.Booteswidow,havenowfiledtheirsupplementalbriefs.  Havingcarefullyconsideredthepetitionforrehearingandthesupplementalbriefs,wedenythe    petitionforrehearing. !t!   I. #L# EffectoftheLettersTestamentary  p$8 $    Ms.ShiversandMs.Gerritsenpresentfourargumentsinsupportoftheirpetition.First,they H&"& assertthatweerredbyconcludingthatthetrialcourtsDecember14,2001orderwastheorderthat 4'"' admittedMr.Booteswillandfirsttwocodicilstoprobateinsolemnform.AccordingtoMs.  (#( ShiversandMs.Gerritsen,theclerkandmasterofthechancerycourtadmittedthewillandfirsttwo  )$) codicilstoprobateinsolemnformonNovember15,2001whenitissuedletterstestamentarytoMs. )%*  Boote,andthecourtsDecember14,2001orderwhichpurportedtoadmitthewillandfirsttwo *&+ codicilstoprobateinsolemnformmerely reaffirm[ed]theclerkandmastersearlierorder.  #  1      ׀This 8  argumentplacessubstantiallymoreweightontheletterstestamentarythantheycanbear. $   Anexecutororexecutrixservesasacourtappointedreceivertocollectandpreservethe  decedentsassetsduringthependencyoftheprobateproceedings,topaytheclaimsofcreditors,and  torecommendtothecourtanappropriatefinaldistributionofthedecedentsestate.InreEstateof  Barnhill,62S.W.3d139,144(Tenn.2001);InreEstateofBarnwell,No.01A019711PB00656,   1998WL755011,at*1,45(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.30,1998)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11application  t filed);1JackW.Robinson,Sr.&JeffMobley,PritchardontheLawofWillsand  ` AdministrationofEstates36,at5861,63,at10506,64,at10809(5thed.1994&Supp.  L  2004)( Pritchard).Theletterstestamentaryevidencetheexecutororexecutrixsappointment p 8  bythecourt.1Pritchard37,at61.Theexecutororexecutrixpresentscopiesofthelettersto \$  banks,creditors,insurancecompanies,andotherstodemonstratehisorherlegalauthoritytoenter H  intobindingtransactionsrelatingtothedecedentsproperty.2Pritchard602,at11314.Thus, 4  theappointmentofanexecutororexecutrixthroughtheissuanceofletterstestamentaryisamere    equitableremedythatisancillarytotheunderlyingprobateproceedings.      AttheconclusionoftheNovember15,2001hearing,thetrialcourtdirectedtheclerkand  masterofthechancerycourttoissueletterstestamentarytoMs.Bootewiththeprovisothatthey  wouldbesubjecttoalaterorderfromthecourtitself.Theclerkandmastercompliedwiththe  courtsdirectionandissuedletterstestamentarytoMs.BooteonNovember15,2001.Thecourtdid p notdirecttheclerkandmastertoenteranorderadmittingthewillandfirsttwocodicilstoprobate \ insolemnform,andtheletterstestamentaryissuedbytheclerkandmasterdidnotpurporttodoso. H Whileaclerkandmasterofthechancerycourthasexpressstatutoryauthoritytograntletters l4 testamentary,toappointexecutorsandexecutrices,andeventoadmitwillstoprobateincommon X  form,heorshehasnosimilarauthoritytoadmitawilltoprobateinsolemnform.Tenn.CodeAnn. D  1616201(b)(Supp.2005).Thus,thetrialcourtsownDecember14,2001 OrderAdmittingWill 0 toProbatedecreeingthatthewillandfirsttwocodicils beadmittedtoprobateinsolemnform  istheonlyorderofprobateinsolemnforminvolvedinthiscase.    Ms.ShiversandMs.Gerritsenalsoarguethat theappointmentofanexecutrixtoadminister  anestatenecessarilyimpliesthatthewillhasbeenadmittedtoprobate.T  #  2      ׀Thisargumentoverlooks   thepossibilitythatthetrialcourterredbyprematurelyauthorizingtheissuanceofletters !  testamentarytoMs.Boote.Letterstestamentarycannotbeissueduntilthewillonwhichtheyare "l! basedhasbeenadmittedtoprobate.1Pritchard36,at5859.Thus,thetrialcourtshouldnot #X" haveauthorizedtheclerkandmasterofthechancerycourttoissueletterstestamentarytoMs.Boote |$D # evenonaprovisionalbasisuntilafterthecourthadenteredanorderadmittingthewillandfirsttwo h%0!$ codicilstoprobateinsolemnform.Prematureissuanceofletterstestamentarycannotserveto T&"% conjureupoutofthinairapriororderadmittingawilltoprobateinsolemnformwhennosuchorder @'#& exists. ,(#'  )$(   TheDecember14,2001orderadmittedthewillandfirsttwocodicilstoprobateinsolemn 8 form.Thetrialcourtdidnotdirecttheclerkandmastertoenteranorderofprobateinsolemnform $ onNovember15,2001,andtheclerkandmasterhadnoindependentauthoritytoentersuchanorder.  Accordingly,wedisagreewithMs.ShiversandMs.Gerritsensassertionthattheclerkandmaster  ofthechancerycourtadmittedthewillandfirsttwocodicilstoprobateinsolemnformbyissuing  letterstestamentarytoMs.BooteonNovember15,2001.    II.  t FilingoftheDeclaratoryJudgmentPetitionandtheThirdCodicil  ` astheFunctionalEquivalentofaNoticeofContest   L  i%  Ms.ShiversandMs.Gerritsenssecondargumentisthatthiscourterredbyconcludingthat \$  thefilingofthedeclaratoryjudgmentpetitionwithacopyofthethirdcodicilattachedwasthe H  functionalequivalentofanoticeofcontestdeprivingthetrialcourtofauthoritytoenteritsDecember 4  14,2001orderofprobateinsolemnform.  #  3      ׀Thisargumentrestsonthreeflawedpremises:(1)that    apetitionfordeclaratoryjudgmentcannotbeusedtoinitiateawillcontest;(2)thatweerredin    relyingontheTennesseeSupremeCourtsdecisioninInreWillofAmbrister,205Tenn.737,330  S.W.2d330(1959);and(3)thatweappliedthewrongstandardofreviewindecidingwhetherthe  trialcourterredwhenitenteredtheDecember14,2001orderofprobateinsolemnform.    Ms.ShiversandMs.Gerritsenhavecitednoauthorityforthepropositionthatapetitionfor p declaratoryjudgmentcannotbeusedtodrawatrialcourtsattentiontotheexistenceofalaterwill \ orcodicil,therebytriggeringawillcontest.ThispropositiondoesnotcomportwiththeTennessee H SupremeCourtspronouncementsthattheinstitutionofawillcontest doesnotrequireformalities, l4 Jenkinsv.Jenkins,168Tenn.292,297,77S.W.2d805,806(1935),andthat apersondesiringto X  contestawillneeddonomorethanmakethatfactknown,InreEstateofKing,760S.W.2d208, D  210(Tenn.1988).Moreover,inInreWillofAmbrister,theTennesseeSupremeCourtadoptedthe 0  generalrulethatthebringinginofalaterwillwhicheitherexpresslyorimpliedlyappearstorevoke  anearlierwillconstitutesacontest.InreWillofAmbrister,205Tenn.at746,330S.W.2dat334;  seealsoMurrellv.Rich,131Tenn.378,399400,175S.W.420,426(1914).Undertheseandother  precedents,theTennesseeSupremeCourthasmadeitclearthattheproceduralvehiclechosenfor  bringingalaterwillorcodiciltothetrialcourtsattentionislargelyirrelevantindecidingwhether   awillcontesthasbeeninitiated. !    Ms.ShiversandMs.GerritsencontendthatthiscasedoesnotfitwithintheruleofInreWill #X" ofAmbrister.Inthatcase,alaterwillexpresslyandcompletelyrevokedanearlierwill;whileinthis |$D # case,thethirdcodicildoesnotchallengethevalidityofthewillandfirsttwocodicilsbutinstead h%0!$ merelyseeksto amendor modifythem.Thesearedistinctionswithoutadifference.The T&"% decisioninInreWillofAmbristerstatesplainlythatawillcanberevokedbyalaterinstrument @'#& X XXX  eitherexpresslyorimpliedly,#X XXX 2#X XXX ԀInreWillofAmbrister,205Tenn.at746,330S.W.2dat334 ,(#' (emphasisadded)#X XXX i3#X XXX ,andthattherulebeingadoptedapplieswithequalforcetobothwillsandcodicils, 8 InreWillofAmbrister,205Tenn.at745,330S.W.2dat334#X XXX 4#Ԁ( Thegroundsofcontestarenot,ithas $ beenheld,limitedtoissuesgoingtotheexecutionoftheprobatedwill,butthecomplainantmayset  upasagroundofcontestalaterwillorcodicil.)(emphasisadded)X XXX .    Ms.ShiversandMs.Gerritsensassertionthatthethirdcodicilwouldnotoperateasapartial  revocationofthewillandfirsttwocodicilsifitwereadmittedtoprobatealongwiththem   understatestheimpactofthethirdcodicilonthedistributionofMr.Bootesestate.#X XXX 6#Animplied  t revocationexistswheneveralaterwillorcodicilprovidesforadistributionofthedecedentsestate  ` thatdirectlycontradictstheschemeofdistributioncontainedinanearlierinstrument.ThirdNatl  L  Bankv.Scribner,175Tenn.14,31,130S.W.2d126,133(1939);Seilazv.Seilaz,24Tenn.App. p 8  611,61415,148S.W.2d23,26(1940).Underthewillandfirsttwocodicils,Ms.Bootewould \$  receivea$600,000maritaltrustfromtheestate,andMs.ShiversandMs.Gerritsenwouldtakeequal H  sharesofaresiduaryestateworthwellover$30millionbeforethepaymentofestatetaxesand 4  expenses.Bycontrast,underthethirdcodicil,Ms.Bootewouldreceivenotonlythe$600,000    maritaltrust,butalsoaonethirdshareoftheresiduaryestate,therebyreducingMs.ShiversandMs.    Gerritsenssharesfromonehalftoonethird.Alaterinstrumentthatreducesthesharesoftwo  beneficiariesby$5millioneachandincreasesathirdbeneficiarysshareby$10milliondoesnot  merely amendor modifytheearlierinstruments.Itoperatesasanimpliedpartialrevocationof  theearlierinstrumentsthatfitswellwithintheruleofInreWillofAmbrister.    Ms.ShiversandMs.Gerritsensthirdpremiseisthatweappliedanincorrectstandardof \ reviewindecidingwhetherMs.Bootesdeclaratoryjudgmentpetitionwasthefunctionalequivalent H ofanoticeofcontest.Theyassertthatweshouldhaveappliedthe abuseofdiscretionstandard l4 ofreviewbecausethecaseinvolvesthedenialofapetitionfordeclaratoryjudgment.Thisclaim X  misperceivesthebasicframeworkofourdecision.Wedidnotconcludethatthetrialcourt D  committedreversibleerrorbyrefusingtograntMs.Bootesdeclaratoryjudgmentpetition,inwhich 0 caseapplicationoftheabuseofdiscretionstandardofreviewwouldhavebeenappropriate.Instead,  weconcludedthatthetrialcourtcommittedreversibleerrorinpressingaheadwiththeinsolemn  formprobateproceedingonceithadbeenmadeaware,throughthefilingofthedeclaratoryjudgment  petition,thattherewasathirdcodicilthatappearedonitsfacetooperateasapartialrevocationof  thewillandfirsttwocodicils.Thefactthatthetrialcourtlearnedofthethirdcodicilthroughthe   filingofapetitionfordeclaratoryjudgmentratherthanthroughsomeotherproceduralvehicleis !  incidentaltotheanalysisandhasnobearingonthecorrectstandardofreview.  #  4       "l!   III. |$D # TheNovember15,2001HearingasaWillContest  h%0!$ C  Ms.ShiversandMs.GerritsensthirdargumentinvolvestheideathattheNovember15, @'#& 2001hearingwasitselfawillcontest.Thus,atleastaccordingtoMs.ShiversandMs.Gerritsen, ,(#' therehadalreadybeenonewillcontestbythetimeMs.Bootefiledherdeclaratoryjudgmentpetition 8 onDecember7,2001,andMs.Bootecouldnotinitiateasecondwillcontestwithoutallegingfraud $ orperhapsnewlydiscoveredevidence.TheyclaimthatbecauseMs.Booteneverallegedfraudin  thetrialcourt,andbecausethethirdcodicildoesnotsatisfytherequirementsfornewlydiscovered  evidence,thetrialcourtproperlyrefusedtoentertainherattempttoinitiateasecondwillcontest.    Thedefectinthisargumentisitsfirstpremise.Ahearinginaproceedingtoprobateawill   insolemnformisnotawillcontest.Tobesure,therearesimilaritiesintheproceduresand  t conclusivenessofwillcontestsandproceedingstoprobateawillinsolemnform.Inaddition,both  ` thiscourtandtheTennesseeSupremeCourthavefrequentlyanalogizedthetwotypesofproceedings  L  inpriordecisions,severalofwhichhavebeencitedbyMs.ShiversandMs.Gerritseninsupportof p 8  theirargument.Pettyv.Call,599S.W.2d791,793(Tenn.1980);Bearmanv.Camatsos,215Tenn. \$  231,385S.W.2d91,94(1964);Lillardv.Tolliver,154Tenn.304,285S.W.576,579(1926);Green H  v.Higdon,891S.W.2d220,222(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Ineachofthecitedcases,thecourt 4  highlightedthesimilaritiesordissimilaritiesbetweenthetwotypesofproceedingsonitswayto    makingalargerpointregardingthelegalquestionsatissueinthatparticularcase.Noneofthese    casesstandsforthepropositionthataninsolemnformprobateproceedingthathasnotyetbeen  concludedbarstheinitiationofawillcontest.Tothecontrary,theauthoritiesareclearthatifawill  contestistobemaintainedatall,itmustbeinitiatedpriortotheentryoftheorderofprobatein  solemnform.See,e.g.,Murrellv.Rich,131Tenn.at397-99,175S.W.at425-26.    IV. \ DenialofMs.BootesPetitionforPostJudgmentRelief  H cN  Ms.ShiversandMs.Gerritsensfourthargumentisthatthetrialcourtproperlydeniedthe X  portionofMs.BootesmotionforpostjudgmentreliefthatrequestedanewtrialbecauseMs.Boote D  didnotsatisfytherequirementsofTenn.R.Civ.P.59.Inouroriginalopinion,wesaidthatonce 0 weconcludedthatthetrialcourtcommittedreversibleerrorbyenteringtheDecember14,2001order  inthefirstplace,wesawnoneedtoaddresswhetherthetrialcourtalsoerredlaterbyapplyingan  incorrectstandardtoevaluateMs.Bootesmotionforpostjudgmentreliefbasedonitsconclusion  thatprobateinsolemnform trumpstheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.Havingdeclinedto  decidethisquestioninouroriginalopinion,weseenoreasontoaddressitfullyinresponsetoMs.   ShiversandMs.Gerritsenspetitionforrehearing.  #  5      ׀Accordingly,weneednotaddressMs.Shivers !  andMs.Gerritsensderivativeargumentsregardingtheproprietyofthetrialcourtsdenialofone 8 partofMs.Bootesmotionforpostjudgmentrelief,i.e.,thepartofthemotionbasedonTenn.R. $ Civ.P.59.    V.  ScopeofProceedingsonRemand   T  Finally,Ms.ShiversandMs.GerritsenexpressconcernthatourOctober21,2005opinion  t undulyrestrictsthescopeoftheproceedingsonremand.Theyaskustobroadenthescopeofthe  ` remandintworespects:(1)toallowthemtoinvestigatemorefullyhowandwhenMs.Booteand  L  herattorney,WalterM.Bussart,discoveredthecircumstancessurroundingthedestructionofthe p 8  originalofthethirdcodicilbyMr.Bootesattorney,ThomasA. DrewDavidson;and(2)to \$  providethemwithanopportunitytocontestallthreecodicils. H    TheremandorderinourOctober21,2005opiniondealtonlywiththeissuesraisedinthe    caseandnothingmore.Itspurposewastoputthepartiesinpreciselythesamepositiontheywould    havebeeninhadthetrialcourtproperlyheldthatthefilingofthedeclaratoryjudgmentpetitionand  thirdcodicilwasthefunctionalequivalentofanoticeofcontesttothewillandfirsttwocodicils.  WhiletheopinionexpresslyauthorizesMs.Bootetoproceedwithacontestifshechoosestodoso,  nothingintheopinionpreventsMs.ShiversandMs.Gerritsenfromalsocontestingthewillandall  threecodicilsifthatistheirdesire.Inthecontextoftheseproceedings,allthepartiesarefreetouse p allthetoolsattheirdisposaltodiscoveranynonprivilegedmatterinvolvedinthepending \ proceedings,subjectofcoursetothetrialcourtssupervision. H X XXX   VI.  X  \  Ms.ShiversandMs.Gerritsenspetitionforrehearingisdenied.Wetaxthecostsrelated 0 tothispetitiontoHelenBooteShiversandLindaBooteGerritsenandtheirsuretyforwhich  execution,ifnecessary,mayissue.#X XXX [#     `     h     ____________________________________ !     `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,P.J.,M.S.