## Facts

- In 1969, Rosemary Reeser Saunders executed a will while of sound mind naming her husband, Robert A. Saunders, as executor and sole beneficiary; if he did not survive her, the estate would pass to or for the benefit of her children.
- Rosemary and Robert had two children together. Rosemary also had two children from a prior marriage, including Laura Diane Cook Stacks (plaintiff) and Charles Cook.
- In 1980, Rosemary learned that Robert and Charles had been engaged in a sexual relationship.
- Rosemary contacted an attorney to begin divorce proceedings and to remove Robert from her will.
- About a month later, before Rosemary filed for divorce or changed her will, she told her attorney she had changed her mind because Robert promised he would discontinue his relationship with Charles.
- Less than a year later, Rosemary died without divorcing Robert or revoking the 1969 will.
- The will was admitted to probate, making Robert the sole beneficiary.
- Laura filed a will contest in probate court (later certified to circuit court), alleging the will was procured through undue influence and fraud. The will contest was dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment, leaving the will intact.
- Laura then filed a separate action in chancery court alleging that Robert’s fraudulent conduct—his promise to stop, allegedly made without intent to perform—caused Rosemary not to revoke her will. The chancery complaint asserted (1) a request to set aside the prior determination of the will’s validity based on extrinsic fraud and (2) a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation (promissory fraud).
- Laura presented proof that Robert continued to pursue Charles after the promise; Robert contended any renewed pursuit occurred only after Rosemary’s death.
- The chancery court found for Laura, set aside the will and the prior will-contest order, and declared Rosemary died intestate. Robert appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the chancery action was barred by res judicata based on the earlier will-contest judgment.
2. Whether Tennessee recognizes promissory fraud as an actionable form of fraudulent misrepresentation and, if so, whether the proof supported liability.
3. Whether the chancery court could grant relief affecting the will and prior will-contest order based on fraud that allegedly prevented Rosemary from revoking her will.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held the chancery action was not barred by res judicata because the later claim addressed fraud that allegedly prevented revocation of the will, a matter collateral to (and not properly tried within) the earlier statutory will contest focused on procurement and validity at execution.
- The court recognized promissory fraud as actionable in Tennessee where a promise of future conduct is made with no present intent to perform, the promise is material, and the other elements of fraud (including reliance and injury) are shown.
- The court affirmed the chancery court’s judgment granting relief based on Robert’s fraud, including setting aside the will and the prior will-contest order and treating Rosemary as having died intestate.

## Legal Principles

- A will contest is a statutory proceeding directed to whether the document is the valid will of the decedent; claims that are collateral to that question may fall outside the issues that can be tried in the will contest.
- Res judicata bars claims that were, or could have been, litigated in the earlier action; it does not bar a later claim that could not properly have been asserted as part of the earlier will-contest litigation.
- Fraud generally requires an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact, knowledge of falsity (or reckless disregard), reasonable reliance, and resulting injury.
- Promissory fraud is a type of fraud in which the misrepresentation is a promise of future action made without a present intent to carry out the promise; when proven, it can support tort liability and equitable relief.
- Equity may grant relief where fraudulent conduct prevents a decedent from exercising testamentary choice, including relief that defeats the wrongdoer’s benefit under the will when the proof shows the will remained unrevoked because of the fraud.

## Conclusion

Stacks v. Saunders held that a prior will-contest loss did not bar a later chancery action alleging that the beneficiary’s deceit kept the testator from revoking her will, and it approved promissory-fraud liability where a promise of future conduct was made without present intent to perform; the appellate court affirmed setting aside the will and the earlier will-contest order and treating the estate as intestate because the fraud was directed at preventing revocation rather than procuring the will’s execution.


Stacks v. Saunders, 812 S.W.2d 587 (1990)