Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE

IN RE: THE ESTATE OF TROY P. FLYNN, DECEASED, HAROLD
FLYNN, V. JAMES EARNEST ARWOOD, ET AL

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County
No. 96-1045-II Hon. Richard Vance, Circuit Judge

No. E1999-00150-COA-R3-CV - Decided June 29, 2000
The Trial Court granted proponents of the Will Summary Judgment on the ground there was no evidence of undue influence. Contestant appealed.

Tenn. R. App. P.3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed.
FRANKS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which GODDARD, P.J., and SUSANO, J., joined.
John K. Harber, Pryor, Flynn, Priest and Harber, Knoxville, for Petitioner-Appellant. Edward L. Summers, Haynes, Meek & Summers, Knoxville, for Respondents-Appellees.

OPINION
In this action contesting the Will of Troy P. Flynn, the Trial Court granted summary judgment to the proponents of the Will, and the contestant has appealed.
Summary judgment under Tenn. R. Civ. P. Rule 56, is warranted only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.  Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 214 (Tenn. 1993).  The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating that there are no disputed material facts creating a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 215.
Our review is de novo upon the record of the Trial Court. No presumption of correctness attaches to decisions granting summary judgments, because they only involve questions of law. Hembree v. State, 925 S.W.2d 513 (Tenn. 1996); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).  In evaluating the evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the opponent of the motion and all legitimate conclusions of fact must be drawn in favor of the opponent.  Gray v. Amos, 869 S.W.2d 925 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).
The contestant asserts that the Trial Court erred in granting opponent

Download flynnt.pdf

Tennessee Law