In Re Estate of Soard
173 S.W.3d 22, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Tennessee's elective-share statute, a surviving spouse's statutory entitlements to exempt property, homestead allowance, and year's support allowance are deducted once from the gross estate to determine the net estate, but they are not deducted a second time from the spouse's calculated percentage share of that net estate.
Facts:
- Frank Soard and Sarah Soard were married on June 24, 1995.
- Frank Soard died on July 14, 2003, after the couple had been married for over eight years.
- Following Frank Soard's death, Sarah Soard became statutorily entitled to a homestead allowance of $5,000, a year's support allowance of $13,656, and exempt property valued at $37,848.92.
- Due to the length of their marriage, Sarah Soard was entitled to an elective share of thirty percent (30%) of Frank Soard's net estate.
- The parties disputed whether the statutory allowances Sarah Soard received should be subtracted from her final elective share amount, in addition to being subtracted from the gross estate during the initial calculation of the net estate.
Procedural Posture:
- Sarah Soard, the surviving spouse, filed a petition in the trial court for her elective share of the Estate of Frank Soard.
- The parties filed a stipulation of material facts but disagreed on the interpretation of the elective-share statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 31-4-101.
- The trial court ruled in favor of the estate, holding that the amounts for homestead, year's support, and exempt property must be credited against (deducted from) the maximum elective-share amount payable to the surviving spouse.
- Sarah Soard (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the reduction language in Tenn. Code Ann. § 31-4-101(c) require that a surviving spouse's statutory allowances for exempt property, homestead, and year's support be deducted from their calculated percentage share of the net estate after those same allowances were already deducted from the gross estate to determine the net estate under subsection (b)?
Opinions:
Majority - Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
No. The reduction language in Tenn. Code Ann. § 31-4-101(c) does not require a second deduction of the surviving spouse's statutory allowances from the final elective share amount. The court found the statute ambiguous regarding the interplay between subsections (b) and (c). It reasoned that deducting these allowances twice—once under subsection (b) to calculate the net estate and again under subsection (c) from the resulting elective share—would produce an 'absurd result.' Such an interpretation would illogically penalize a surviving spouse for claiming entitlements granted by the legislature. The court sought to harmonize the subsections, concluding that since the legislature explicitly named the allowances for deduction in subsection (b) but used general language in subsection (c), it did not intend for them to be deducted again. Therefore, the reduction in subsection (c) applies to other assets transferred to the spouse, such as non-probate assets, but not to the statutory allowances already accounted for.
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial interpretation of Tennessee's elective-share statute, preventing a statutory construction that would lead to an illogical and unjust outcome for surviving spouses. By holding that statutory allowances are not deducted twice, the court reinforced the protective purpose of these entitlements. The decision serves as a key precedent for probate courts and estate practitioners in calculating the elective share, ensuring that the statute is applied in a harmonized and sensible manner. It highlights the judicial principle of avoiding absurd results in statutory interpretation, even when the literal language might create ambiguity.
