Williams v. Estate of Williams
865 S.W.2d 3 (1993) (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When interpreting a will, the testator's predominant intention, as gleaned from the entire document, controls over general rules of construction. Specific language creating a limited interest, such as a devise 'during their lives' with conditions, will create a determinable life estate rather than a fee simple, thereby overcoming the statutory presumption in favor of a fee simple.
Facts:
- On July 18, 1933, G.A. Williams executed a will concerning his 188-acre home farm.
- The will devised the farm to three of his daughters—Ida, Mallie, and Ethel Williams—'to have and to hold during their lives.'
- The will stated the farm was 'not to be sold during their lifetime' and that 'If any of them marry their interest ceases.'
- The stated purpose of the devise was that these daughters had stayed home to care for their sick mother and the testator did not 'want them sold out of a home.'
- G.A. Williams died on November 17, 1944, and was survived by nine children.
- The three named daughters took possession of the farm and none of them ever married.
- At the time of the lawsuit, Ethel Williams was the sole surviving daughter of the three named in the will.
Procedural Posture:
- Ethel Williams, the plaintiff, filed a complaint in the trial court (chancery court) seeking a construction of G.A. Williams' will.
- The Chancellor initially ruled that the daughters received a life estate and a remainder by intestacy, but on rehearing, held they owned the farm in fee simple.
- The defendants (other heirs of G.A. Williams) appealed this decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the will conveyed a fee simple interest to the three daughters.
- The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
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 devise of land to three daughters 'to have and to hold during their lives,' which terminates their interest upon marriage and restricts the sale of the property, convey a fee simple interest under Tennessee law?
Opinions:
Majority - Reid, Chief Justice
No, the devise conveys a determinable life estate, not a fee simple. The primary function of a court in a will construction suit is to ascertain and effectuate the testator's predominant intention as expressed in the will. Here, the testator's intent is clear: to provide a home and support for his three unmarried daughters for as long as they lived and remained single. The specific limiting language—'during their lives' and the defeasance clause upon marriage—explicitly defines an estate less than a fee simple. This clear expression of contrary intent overcomes the statutory presumption that a will conveys a testator's entire interest. The case is distinguishable from White v. Brown because the limiting language here defines the nature of the estate itself, rather than imposing an illegal restraint on the alienation of a fee simple. Therefore, each daughter received a determinable life estate with an executory interest in the others' shares, and the testator's heirs held a reversionary interest.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the foundational principle that the testator's intent is paramount in will construction, trumping statutory presumptions or default rules. It clarifies the distinction between an illegal restraint on alienation attached to a fee simple (as in White v. Brown) and language that validly creates a lesser estate, such as a determinable life estate. By focusing on the testator's 'predominant purpose,' the court signals that it will analyze the will holistically rather than by applying rigid, technical rules to isolated phrases. This approach provides a clear method for lower courts to resolve ambiguities by prioritizing the overall testamentary scheme over potentially conflicting individual clauses or statutory defaults.
Unlock the full brief for Williams v. Estate of Williams