In Re ESTATE OF Thomas Grady CHASTAIN
2012 Tenn. LEXIS 816
| Tenn. | 2012Background
- Decedent died Nov 6, 2009; Will dated Sept 4, 2004 was not signed by Decedent on the two-page instrument.
- Affidavit of attesting witnesses, titled Self-Proved Will Affidavit, was signed by Decedent and witnesses on Sept 4, 2004 and submitted with the Will.
- Will named Patterson as executrix and left remainder to her after specific bequests, sparing Patterson from bond and inventory initially.
- Chastains (grandchildren) challenged validity, asserting Decedent did not sign the Will and that the Affidavit cannot cure the lack of a testator’s signature.
- Trial court ruled the Will was not properly executed; Court of Appeals reversed; Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal.
- Court held that Decedent’s signature on the separate Affidavit does not satisfy the statutory requirement that the testator sign the Will itself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the testator’s signature must appear on the Will itself | Chastains: Affidavit cannot cure missing Will signature | Patterson: Affidavit suffices since it reflects signature and intent | No; signature on Affidavit does not satisfy the Will-signature requirement. |
| Whether the Affidavit can be treated as part of the Will (integration) | Affidavit and Will may be integrated to satisfy execution | Integration not recognized in Tennessee; statute controls | Court declines to adopt integration; Affidavit not part of the Will. |
| Whether Tennessee should adopt the doctrine of integration by statute or case law | Adopt integration to reflect testator’s intent | Legislature did not adopt or relax integration; statutory text controls | Declines to adopt integration; statutory requirement controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of McFarland, 167 S.W.3d 299 (Tenn. 2005) (de novo review; strict execution standards apply to attested wills)
- In re Estate of Stringfield, 283 S.W.3d 832 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (attestation and signing requirements strict; multiple documents issue)
- Fann v. Fann, 208 S.W.2d 542 (Tenn. 1948) (strict compliance with execution formalities required)
- In re Estate of Wait, 306 S.W.2d 345 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1957) (testatrix’s failure to sign with witnesses invalidates execution)
- Ball v. Miller, 214 S.W.2d 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1948) (mandatory nature of execution steps; bearing on validity)
- Eslick v. Wodicka, 215 S.W.2d 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1948) (separate signatures on different pages; strict approach)
- Leathers v. Binkley, 264 S.W.2d 561 (Tenn. 1954) (strict enforcement of execution requirements)
- Simmons v. Leonard, 18 S.W. 280 (Tenn. 1892) (testator must sign or cause signature for a valid will)