concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The majority draws a distinction between “ordinary expenses,” which it holds cannot be deducted from Pate’s share of Decedent’s estate, and “extraordinary expenses,” which may be so deducted. Maj. Op. at 134. However, Decedent’s will provides that his bequest to Pate “shall not be reduced by any expenses of administration of [his] estate.” (Emphasis supplied.) This provision clearly encompasses both ordinary and extraordinary expenses.
I concur in the reversal of the trial court’s ruling that Pate’s share of Decedent’s estate is wholly responsible for expenses related to the undue influence litigation. However, given the language of the will cited above, I must respectfully dissent to the majority’s conclu*137sion that Pate’s share is responsible for any portion of such fees.
Decided October 5, 2009 Reconsideration denied November 9, 2009. Allgood & Mehrhof Thomas F. Allgood, Jr., for appellant. James B. Wall, James W. Ellison, for appellee.I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Carley and Justice Thompson join in this concurrence in part and dissent in part.