In Re ESTATE OF Thomas Grady CHASTAIN
401 S.W.3d 612 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Tennessee law, which demands strict compliance with will execution formalities, a testator's signature on a separate self-proving affidavit does not satisfy the statutory requirement that the will itself must be signed by the testator.
Facts:
- On September 4, 2004, Thomas Grady Chastain ('Decedent') prepared a two-page document titled 'Last Will and Testament'.
- The will bequeathed specific items to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren, with the remainder of his estate going to his daughter, June Chastain Patterson.
- The Decedent's initials and the initials of three witnesses appeared at the bottom of the first page of the will.
- The second page of the will contained the full signatures of the three witnesses but was not signed by the Decedent; there was no designated line for his signature.
- The Decedent and the three witnesses did sign a separate, one-page document titled 'Self-Proved Will Affidavit'.
- This affidavit contained instructional text stating '(attach to Will)' and referred to the will as 'the attached or foregoing instrument'.
- Thomas Grady Chastain died on November 6, 2009.
Procedural Posture:
- June Chastain Patterson filed a petition in trial court alleging that her father, Thomas Grady Chastain, died intestate.
- After Trent and Adrian Chastain ('Chastains') contested Patterson's status as sole heir, Patterson submitted a two-page will and a one-page signed affidavit to the trial court.
- The Chastains filed a motion for declaratory judgment in the trial court, seeking a ruling that the will was invalid because the decedent had not signed it.
- The trial court granted the Chastains' motion, finding the will was not properly executed.
- Patterson, as appellant, was granted an interlocutory appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the signature on the affidavit satisfied the statutory requirement.
- The Chastains, as appellants, were granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee (the state's highest court).
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 a decedent's signature on a separate, one-page self-proving affidavit satisfy the statutory requirement under Tennessee Code Annotated section 32-1-104 that a will must be signed by the testator?
Opinions:
Majority - Clark, J.
No. A decedent's signature on a separate self-proving affidavit does not satisfy the statutory requirement that the will itself must be signed by the testator. Tennessee Code Annotated section 32-1-104 requires the testator to sign the will, and Tennessee courts have a long history of requiring strict compliance with these statutory formalities to prevent fraud and uncertainty. The self-proving affidavit, authorized by a separate statute (Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-2-110), is not part of the will; its own language and the authorizing statute clearly distinguish it as a separate document intended to be attached to the will. The testator's intent to sign the will is irrelevant when the clear statutory mandate has not been met, as courts lack the authority to dispense with these requirements. The court also declined to adopt the 'doctrine of integration' or a 'harmless error' rule, stating that such a change to long-standing legal precedent is a matter for the Legislature, not the judiciary.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Tennessee's position as a strict compliance jurisdiction regarding will execution, emphasizing procedural formality over the testator's apparent intent. The court's refusal to integrate the signed affidavit into the unsigned will creates a bright-line rule that a signature must be on the testamentary document itself. This holding serves as a significant caution against the use of do-it-yourself will forms without legal guidance, as even seemingly minor procedural errors can invalidate the entire instrument. The ruling reinforces the idea that legislative mandates in this area are absolute and that courts will not create equitable exceptions, leaving any relaxation of these formalities to the state legislature.
