In Re Estate of McFarland
2005 Tenn. LEXIS 624, 167 S.W.3d 299, 2005 WL 1583816 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a portion of a residuary devise in a will lapses because the beneficiary predeceased the testator, and the anti-lapse statute is inapplicable, that lapsed portion does not pass to the remaining residuary beneficiaries but instead passes through intestate succession to the testator's heirs at law.
Facts:
- On November 14, 1994, Ms. Merle Jeffers McFarland executed a holographic will.
- The will's residuary clause directed the remainder of her estate to be divided among eighteen named individuals and entities in specific percentages.
- Three of the residuary beneficiaries—Minnis Rankin Jeffers, Willie Lee Jeffers, and Mary Louise McFarland—died before Ms. McFarland.
- None of these three predeceased beneficiaries left any surviving issue.
- The will did not specify an alternative distribution for the shares of any beneficiaries who might predecease the testatrix.
- Ms. McFarland passed away on October 12, 2001, without having altered her will.
Procedural Posture:
- The administrator of Ms. McFarland's estate filed a declaratory judgment action in the chancery court (exercising probate jurisdiction) seeking guidance on distributing the estate.
- The probate court ruled that the lapsed gifts created a partial intestacy and should pass to Ms. McFarland's heirs at law.
- The estate administrator, as appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the probate court.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When a portion of a will's residuary gift lapses and the anti-lapse statute does not apply, does that lapsed portion pass to the remaining residuary beneficiaries, or does it pass through intestate succession to the testator's heirs at law?
Opinions:
Majority - Barker, J.
No, a lapsed portion of a residuary gift does not pass to the remaining residuary beneficiaries; instead, it passes through intestate succession to the testatrix's heirs at law. The court declined to overrule the long-standing common law precedent established in Ford v. Ford (1852), which dictates that a lapsed residuary gift falls out of the will and becomes intestate property. The court reasoned that while the modern trend and the Uniform Probate Code favor distributing the lapsed share among the surviving residuary beneficiaries, the principle of stare decisis mandates adherence to the established Tennessee rule. The court presumed the testatrix was aware of the existing law and chose not to amend her will, and concluded that distributing the lapsed shares to her heirs, the natural objects of her bounty, while preserving the exact percentages for the surviving beneficiaries, most closely honored her stated intentions. Any change to this well-settled rule of property law, the court held, should be made by the legislature, not the judiciary.
Dissenting - Drowota, III, C.J.
Yes, a lapsed portion of a residuary gift should pass to the remaining residuary beneficiaries. The dissent argued for overruling Ford v. Ford and adopting the modern rule, which better reflects a testator's presumed intent and aligns with the strong legal presumption against partial intestacy. The dissent reasoned that a residuary clause is intended to be a 'dragnet' for all remaining property, suggesting the testatrix would prefer the named beneficiaries to receive the entire residue rather than having a portion pass to intestate heirs she may have intentionally omitted. Furthermore, stare decisis should not be an obstacle, as the Ford rule was an old, rarely reaffirmed precedent, and the court should modernize common law doctrines to better align with contemporary understandings of testamentary intent.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Tennessee's position as a minority jurisdiction adhering to the common-law 'no residue of a residue' rule, resisting the overwhelming modern trend embodied by the Uniform Probate Code. The case underscores the significant weight given to stare decisis in the context of property and probate law, where stability and predictability are paramount. It serves as a critical precedent for estate planners, highlighting the necessity of including explicit survivorship clauses in wills to avoid unintended partial intestacy. The court's deference to the legislature signals that any change to this long-standing rule must come through statutory reform, not judicial reinterpretation.
