In Re: Estate of Sandra Kay Christian
E2015-02276-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Feb 24, 2017Background
- Testator Sandra Kay Christian executed a will on March 29, 2012, and died November 15, 2012; her will was admitted to probate.
- Item III contains a residuary clause dividing the residue: 2/5 to sister Phyllis Midgett, 1/5 each to nephews John Reuben Christian, III and Ashley Paul Christian, and 1/5 to niece Regina Christian Dykes.
- The same Item III also (1) grants the nephews the right to purchase the residence and (2) provides that if they do, they shall pay Regina an amount that makes her share "equal with them," and (3) directs sale and division under the residuary if the nephews do not purchase.
- The nephews stated they wished to purchase the residence; the executrix proceeded under that option.
- Midgett sued for a declaration that she is entitled to a two-fifths interest in the residence as part of the residuary estate; the trial court found the purchase provision unambiguous, held the residence was specifically disposed of (not part of the residue), dismissed Midgett’s claim, and required the nephews to pay Regina one-third of the property value.
- Midgett appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the will unambiguous and that Midgett was intentionally excluded from a share of the residence when the nephews purchase it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the purchase provision is ambiguous and whether the residuary clause includes the residence | Midgett: residuary clause covers the residence; she is entitled to 2/5 of the property | Nephews/Niece: purchase clause disposes of residence separately; if nephews buy, proceeds distribution is limited to nephews and Regina | Court: provision unambiguous; residence specifically devised when nephews purchase; Midgett gets no interest |
| Whether the court may construe the will to give Midgett a share despite express purchase language | Midgett: testator would have written exclusion differently; residuary should control | Defs: must follow plain language granting nephews purchase right and payment to Regina | Court: may not rewrite will; must enforce testator's plain words; exclude Midgett |
| Proper remedy if nephews purchase — who receives value and how much | Midgett: expects 2/5 share if residence considered part of residue | Defs: nephews pay Regina an amount to make her share equal with them (i.e., split value among three) | Court: nephews shall pay Regina one-third of property value; Midgett receives nothing from residence |
| Standard of review for will construction | (implicit) Midgett urged de novo review but disputed interpretation | Defs: plain-language construction; intent drawn from whole will | Court: de novo review; found trial court’s unambiguous interpretation correct |
Key Cases Cited
- McBride v. Sumrow, 181 S.W.3d 666 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (will construction is a question of law for the court)
- Third Nat. Bank of Nashville v. First American Nat. Bank of Nashville, 596 S.W.2d 824 (Tenn. 1980) (court must discover and give effect to testator's intent)
- Strickley v. Carmichael, 850 S.W.2d 127 (Tenn. 1992) (intent ascertained from the whole will, not isolated parts)
- In re Estate of McFarland, 167 S.W.3d 299 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (residuary clause functions as a dragnet for property not otherwise disposed)
- In re Estate of Milam, 181 S.W.3d 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (every word in a will is presumed to have meaning; interpret the will as written)
- In re Estate of Snapp, 233 S.W.3d 288 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (courts may not make a new will or bequest for a testator)