[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6181687,"mediaKeyId","5112393-a344de8000e9aa922cdd953caadd8514","parentId",5112393,"title","Judge provisionally admits handwritten will for David D. Matthews Sr., appoints daughter to administer estate","audioSeconds",866,"startMs",11164000,"endMs",12030000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5112393-a344de8000e9aa922cdd953caadd8514&start=11164&end=12030","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5112393-a344de8000e9aa922cdd953caadd8514/thumbnail_11164000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6181687/Tennessee/Judge-provisionally-admits-handwritten-will-for-David-D-Matthews-Sr-appoints-daughter-to-administer-estate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6181687-13805a15b1f50850dde6aa609a7043db/orig.mp4?Expires=1771055766&Signature=evk6EnGmbrLXg7FDu~Mn~bZkfS5CqPsiAezflMG6jeiBNgyqeZ3fSK8TMsY-WV7lFlB9nAVGbh2GFf7qZJUH-NHkID4yej3BQ4TlWghIZz32tjI0SPeW45-hBZyRagaxvpwY5b7iU1Qk~i-u2V0wfudMeKrhHPdFaV47Ffxn~GSEiZZpG3PStuMYtP243X0B4Czu~90Btqct0sJ3oIuWVwb8oApboAIBgkwRg3-HtBQFoJYzoWiTTPaQZ9sCAuhD9oKp58rD4hXLap3m762~k7K9055BST2gIsxEVfvQBNICm-LyCmNgc11gTjQqKjacqRjNComH8My~z4-bOaKv3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-01T19:06:39Z","article","A Cheatham County judge provisionally admitted a handwritten (holographic) will for the estate of David D. Matthews Sr. after two disinterested witnesses testified that the handwriting and signature were those of the deceased. The court accepted testimony from family members and witnesses who said the document reflected Matthews’s testamentary wishes and identified his daughter (referred to in the will as \"Misty,\" given name Mary Melissa Matthews) as the person to oversee property and administration.

Under Tennessee probate law governing holographic wills, the court received affidavits and live testimony from two witnesses who said they recognized the decedent’s handwriting. The judge found the instrument met statutory requirements for a holographic will — written entirely in the decedent’s handwriting and intended as a testamentary instrument — and admitted it to probate. The judge provisionally admitted the will and directed that anyone contesting the admission must file a challenge within 30 days.

Why it matters: The ruling moves estate administration forward without a lengthy initial contest and provides direction for distributing the principal asset — the decedent’s residence in Cheatham County — while preserving due process for relatives or other interested parties who may later contest the instrument’s validity.

Testimony and next steps: Witnesses described the decedent’s intent that certain grandchildren continue to live in the home and that his daughter oversee the property. The judge said he would allow the administration to proceed under the admitted holographic will, but retained jurisdiction to address any later challenges. The court asked counsel for the petitioner to prepare a written order reflecting the admission and the 30-day contest period.

Court order and procedure: The judge directed that an order admitting the will be filed and that notice be given to the parties listed on the certificate of service. The court indicated it would set administration and ancillary scheduling consistent with local probate procedures.
","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","7-1-25 Cheatham Civil Dockets","oneSentenceSummary","The court admitted a holographic will attested by two disinterested witnesses and provisionally allowed administration to proceed under that document, with 30 days for any contesting party to file objections.","taxTitle","Judge David D. Wolfe State of Tennessee, Judicial, Tennessee","taxId",66321,"location","Tennessee","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6181692,"Judge awards $3,031 judgment in favor of creditor after bench trial over promissory note",4661,5478000,10139000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5112393-a344de8000e9aa922cdd953caadd8514&start=5478&end=10139","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5112393-a344de8000e9aa922cdd953caadd8514/thumbnail_5478000.jpg","/articles/6181692/Tennessee/Judge-awards-3031-judgment-in-favor-of-creditor-after-bench-trial-over-promissory-note","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6181692-6fe0b280fb32d7cd46f0680964da61ef/orig.mp4?Expires=1771055766&Signature=ODW2EDhLqsGcnJWBgs6MCxhxIdcYrZ79HMz2zz76Drjq-BPNFa~PM7pu3nPx6HBd5~c6g4JDGkcDsQK7hI29uH2HGc7gfPHvpLyPZ~4DYASel48xx60sttBQbPGtuWanf-PoKd-eeGnmDQNyBD7WmnsfaT4MxINxSb78XPMQr-Yk5AqCW8rCyX1A6hVP4M8N0VU3j~SMJrqH0M~2y5oMl6tooHVAHgWPClD0JU5oFi7Vb105fU5YjIiZkZCi6cEe7P4m1-WKIBL-f~3gqe83kOx3e6jEOPkBZPXgwnPpmTMEvbTg~qjnpAgC02xLtEuam6sDcPqXQE0hWu23q0Cupw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Cheatham County judge entered judgment for plaintiff Gilbert (\"Gil\") Smith in a dispute over loans and purchases made for defendant Roy (Craig) Craig (listed in court as Memorial Craig). After a bench trial where both parties and witnesses testified, the court found a signed promissory note for $1,200 but disallowed a $300 interest provision as usurious. The trial court credited certain additional expenditures Smith paid on Craig’s behalf but rejected other claimed items as insufficiently proven.

The judge found the following: the original $1,200 loan was valid and collectible; the $300 interest identified in the promissory note was excessive and the court declined to award it as usurious; the court did not find sufficient proof for an alleged $500 additional cash loan; the court found that $836 paid to redeem four firearms from pawn was supported by a credit-card receipt and was a legitimate debt; the court found $150 for a bow-and-arrow purchase (plus knives) and $30 for a hat credible; the court declined to award $40 for fuel and $128 for an AAA membership because those items were not substantiated by adequate documentation. The court awarded court costs of $215 and attorney’s fees of $600 under a promissory-note provision requiring the borrower to pay the lender’s reasonable attorney fees for collection. The court said the appeal bond of $500, if paid, would be refunded and therefore not included in the collectible judgment.

The judge explained his reasoning from the bench, saying in part that \"no good deed goes unpunished\" and finding that some claims lacked documentary support. He determined the total judgment, after disallowing the usurious interest and the unproven items but including validated debts and fees, to be $3,031.

Why it matters: The decision illustrates the court’s scrutiny of oral and informal loan arrangements, especially where the borrower is described in court as vulnerable. It underscores that promissory-note terms may be limited by usury law and that courts require corroborating documentation for additional asserted debts.

Evidence and testimony: The defendant (Mr. Craig) testified that he signed a promissory note and acknowledged some of the items, but often could not recall receipts or specifics. Plaintiff Smith produced a credit-card receipt for $836 to redeem property from pawn and a written ledger of additional amounts he said he advanced. Smith’s sister and other witnesses testified about their concerns for Craig’s vulnerability and about administering his affairs; Lisa Craig Beasley, who testified she is co-trustee for Craig, told the court she would consider paying substantiated debts but asked for receipts and corroboration.

Court’s ruling and amounts: The court allowed the $1,200 principal, disallowed $300 interest as usurious, found $836 (pawn redemption), $150 (bow/knives), and $30 (hat) provable, denied $500 cash and $128 AAA membership for lack of proof, denied $40 fuel, awarded $215 court costs and $600 attorney fees under the note. Net judgment entered: $3,031.

Next steps: The judgment will be entered on the court docket. The court also noted the parties' strained relationship and said the family (and trustee) could pay amounts proved if the defendant confirmed them; the judge directed the clerk to enter judgment consistent with his findings.
","After a bench trial over a disputed promissory note and a series of informal loans, the court awarded plaintiff Gilbert (Gil) Smith $3,031, rejecting some claimed charges as unsupported and striking excessive interest as usurious.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6181697,"Judge to rule after heated discovery hearing over attorney fees in pool-contractor case",1164,1374000,2538000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5112393-a344de8000e9aa922cdd953caadd8514&start=1374&end=2538","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5112393-a344de8000e9aa922cdd953caadd8514/thumbnail_1374000.jpg","/articles/6181697/Tennessee/Judge-to-rule-after-heated-discovery-hearing-over-attorney-fees-in-pool-contractor-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6181697-896148a5a0df4528c8532787cbe8c194/orig.mp4?Expires=1771055766&Signature=RoPg9HcCf5~4gaNAm-5Xt~hYBasw~nR7445AnFO9NjVlRDrR1ZTi26dflTOENiC978DPPFMOnEs5R3ITNT8sNTZLm3HrV5WBKxEI06aFQA5D7ueMaG3lPHkTLmhDkXkjckoc~Hn7mfLC6H45rAWcC8LLB-N-PAQ1Nmj3z070XxeupajgDI6Edbzyx9Kh2sxGV95YIb63s2E5fR5qoh5MLjWAohwSj5P1ohXv5YQjkef2bL9n0wfbMT~qjmVl38Mn1a43XLSdU3sovhz2ETJqZrKS4nZcaeaOYbYWpReYPYlrDushBr8BgPslWrKnTW15clgGurEYkFhwJV22pggnVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Cheatham County judge heard arguments Wednesday over whether the court should award attorney fees after granting a motion to compel discovery in a civil dispute between Douglas Simmons and Sundance Pool & Spa Inc. Counsel for the plaintiff, Noel Bagwell, asked the court to make an award of reasonable costs and attorney fees explicit in a previously entered order; defense counsel argued the opposition was “substantially justified” by a mutually held assumption that discovery was paused pending mediation.

Bagwell told the court the motion to compel had been granted and no finding was made that the plaintiff’s motion was substantially unjustified; he urged the court to “follow the plain language of the rule” and award fees under Rule 37. Defense counsel said the parties had a reasonable, albeit informal, expectation that discovery was paused while the parties prepared for mediation and that the opposition to the motion was not filed in bad faith. The defense said communication lapses occurred on both sides and that an award of fees would be unjust.

The judge repeatedly cautioned counsel about allegations of dishonesty and the duty of candor toward the court, and said he would review the pleadings and issue an opinion on the fee question in the coming days. The judge observed that while the rule’s language typically requires a court to award fees when a motion to compel is granted, exceptions exist where the opposition was “substantially justified” or where an award would be unjust.

Why it matters: Awards of discovery-related attorney fees can shift litigation costs and set a precedent for how local litigants handle discovery and mediation scheduling. The case illustrates the court’s role in policing discovery conduct and the fine line between tactical disagreement and sanctionable obstruction.

What was in dispute: Plaintiff’s counsel said the defense received two formal Rule 37 notices and failed to cure deficient discovery responses despite opportunities to do so. Defense counsel said an intervening family death and a partner’s trial led to communication lapses and that both sides shared responsibility for any miscommunication about pausing discovery for mediation.

What the judge said: The judge said he would review the record, emphasized professional responsibility, and said both counsel are “good lawyers.” He asked for time to make a written ruling and said he would provide an opinion within a few days.

Next steps: The court will issue a written ruling on whether attorney fees under the discovery rule must be entered; that decision will determine whether the plaintiff will receive an award of reasonable costs and fees for pursuing the motion to compel.
","In a dispute over a motion to compel in Douglas Simmons v. Sundance Pool & Spa Inc., the court heard dueling accounts about whether discovery was paused for mediation and will issue a written ruling on entitlement to attorney fees.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6181702,"Judge denies motion to quash grand-jury subpoena for man who alleges deputy assaulted him",695,591000,1286000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5112393-a344de8000e9aa922cdd953caadd8514&start=591&end=1286","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5112393-a344de8000e9aa922cdd953caadd8514/thumbnail_591000.jpg","/articles/6181702/Tennessee/Judge-denies-motion-to-quash-grand-jury-subpoena-for-man-who-alleges-deputy-assaulted-him","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6181702-1b16b41447081a5a4a33ac1c2d34606f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771055766&Signature=oAg38B9qabN2tZX~DHt9yDpJtSvsmJEcZmB75JieJ9hFG6GyvNiuivtYDqPwqn8cTfORRnFIe6JWf4bTpwfRHON9WcZoMsCg-j9jXEEpFpXBTe1bJtCNrtWvFW6pwhGm~1DHJ~ljtROz9EWCbg9zm2ko3faDvMqx1OjUaUKpcj~xQWqKWbQq5iwR5nVpmFJQZdIC1graO~s0sDgURQg5eTJGYNeBTNI2EkUfywfjirLGEB3G79tYfOnlvQt1GUrtwJUUOPgPIkSUdhTqEhTgLSlDyzdt69SpDXFrrCZJuBal4N13z~ZZD01Fp4AqnZiTuP9cvEfiQHUKgeJrrVhPHA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Cheatham County judge denied a defense request to quash a grand-jury subpoena for Zachary Scruggs on grounds that the witness could be compelled to testify about alleged misconduct by Deputy Ryan (or Corporal) Creech, while preserving Scruggs’s Fifth Amendment right on any questions that would incriminate him.

The ruling came during a hearing on a motion filed on behalf of Scruggs to quash the subpoena, which his lawyer argued would “put him in a position of peril to incriminate himself.” The state requested the witness because neither Scruggs nor Deputy Ryan Creech had provided voluntary statements to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI), and the prosecutor said the grand jury otherwise had only hearsay and limited video evidence.

The judge framed the ruling narrowly: Scruggs may be required to appear and testify before the grand jury about whether Deputy Creech committed criminal acts against him, but Scruggs may invoke the Fifth Amendment when questions would expose him to criminal liability. The judge said the grand jury should limit its consideration to the deputy’s actions and that the state cannot use testimony given by a witness who appears before the grand jury as the basis to indict that witness without waiver. The court denied the motion to quash but admonished counsel that questioning should be confined to Scruggs’s account of alleged misconduct by Deputy Creech.

Why it matters: The decision preserves the grand jury’s ability to investigate potential criminal conduct by a law-enforcement officer while recognizing a witness’s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. The state told the court it had requested a TBI investigation and said, without voluntary cooperation from key witnesses, it had limited evidence beyond body-camera footage.

Courtroom record and evidence: Defense counsel argued the subpoena would invite Scruggs to “testify before the grand jury about what he alleges officer Creech did to him” and risk self-incrimination; the judge and state discussed that Scruggs previously invoked the Fifth Amendment at a general-session preliminary hearing. The prosecutor, Jimmy Short, told the court that “there is video evidence of the entire events” but described the body-camera footage as incomplete when both men are in frame. Short said neither Scruggs nor Creech had agreed to voluntary interviews with the TBI and that the state faced the possibility of indicting someone without an available witness to testify at trial.

What the court ordered: The judge ordered that Scruggs’s grand-jury questioning be limited to the actions he alleges Deputy Creech committed against him. The judge explicitly preserved Scruggs’s right to invoke the Fifth Amendment if any question would cause him to incriminate himself. The court declined to quash the subpoena outright. The state noted it would not seek to hold Scruggs in contempt if he declined to testify.

Next steps: The grand jury will proceed with the limited questioning if the state calls Scruggs. The state told the court it needs cooperating witnesses to present a fuller criminal case and said the body-cam footage alone might not be sufficient to carry a prosecution to a jury without live testimony.","A judge denied a defense motion to quash a grand-jury subpoena for Zachary Scruggs but limited questioning to alleged misconduct by Deputy Ryan Creech and preserved Scruggs’s right to invoke the Fifth Amendment on other topics.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Judge provisionally admits handwritten will for David D. Matthews Sr., appoints daughter to administer estate

Judge awards $3,031 judgment in favor of creditor after bench trial over promissory note

Judge to rule after heated discovery hearing over attorney fees in pool-contractor case

Judge denies motion to quash grand-jury subpoena for man who alleges deputy assaulted him