In Re Estate of Veronica Stewart
545 S.W.3d 458
Tenn. Ct. App.2017Background
- Veronica Stewart executed a three‑page attested will on June 19, 2015; she signed each page but the two attesting witnesses signed only an attestation affidavit (and not the will itself) in the presence of the testator and a notary.
- Ms. Stewart died September 16, 2015; the will was admitted to probate on September 22, 2015 and letters testamentary issued.
- Ms. Stewart’s father, Derwood Stewart (heir‑at‑law), filed a will contest three days after probate; primary beneficiary Lazaro Serna defended the will.
- After this court’s In re Estate of Morris decision, the Tennessee legislature enacted Public Chapter 843 (House Bill 1472) amending Tenn. Code Ann. § 32‑1‑104 to treat witness signatures on a compliant attestation affidavit as signatures to the will for wills executed prior to July 1, 2016.
- The trial court held the amendment did not apply because the testator died before the amendment took effect and therefore declared the 2015 will invalid; the appellate court reviewed whether the 2016 amendment applies retrospectively and whether retrospective application violates Article I, § 20 of the Tennessee Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stewart) | Defendant's Argument (Serna) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2016 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. § 32‑1‑104 applies to wills executed before July 1, 2016 | The law at death controls; amendment enacted after death cannot validate a prior will | Legislature expressly stated amendment applies to wills executed prior to July 1, 2016, so it validates such wills | Amendment applies retrospectively to wills executed before July 1, 2016 (legislative intent clear) |
| Whether retrospective application of the amendment impairs heir’s vested rights under Tenn. Const. Art. I, § 20 | Retroactive statute would divest heir’s vested inheritance rights because law at death governed substantive rights | Retroactive application is remedial, vindicates testator’s intent, and does not impair any absolute vested right of the heir | Retroactive application is constitutional; heir’s rights were contingent, not vested, and factors favor retrospective remedial application |
| Whether witness signatures on a compliant attestation affidavit satisfy statutory execution requirements for the 2015 will | Heir: No — witnesses did not sign the will itself as required when will executed; Morris controls | Serna: Yes — signatures on self‑proving affidavit made contemporaneously should be considered signatures to the will under the amendment | Under amended § 32‑1‑104(b), witness signatures on a compliant affidavit made contemporaneously are treated as signatures to the will, validating the 2015 will |
| Remedy / disposition | Request invalidation of will and intestacy distribution | Request validation of will and remand for probate proceedings consistent with validity | Reversed trial court; remanded for further proceedings consistent with validating the will under the 2016 amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Chastain, 401 S.W.3d 612 (Tenn. 2012) (discusses purpose and formalities of Tennessee Execution of Wills Act)
- Stewart v. Sewell, 215 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. 2007) (principle that law in effect at death generally governs substantive estate rights)
- Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919 (Tenn. 1999) (factors for assessing whether a retrospective statute impairs vested rights)
- Gallaher v. Elam, 104 S.W.3d 455 (Tenn. 2003) (strong presumption of constitutionality for statutes)
- Shields v. Clifton Hill Land Co., 28 S.W. 668 (Tenn. 1894) (remedial retrospective statutes may cure procedural defects without violating constitutional prohibition against retrospective laws)
- In re Estate of Trigg, 368 S.W.3d 483 (Tenn. 2012) (explains probate function and contingent nature of inheritance until probate determination)
- In re Estate of McFarland, 167 S.W.3d 299 (Tenn. 2005) (presumption against intestacy once a will is admitted to probate)