WPC TSu~F v++'0#2qG}P‘q٣:Ȅ̱kw:8cd&gUM`;x$70#nd xߴ? (#R\0[+& ٱNk?[D巺NJCZG)SSuq?:;vv;\yy)x1ZgSo|McDoS}ca, M2/!J_w&Ř3Jw7 IFIM?STA7 ?Z@@[P{b3)ZSU@ ;$eUv4dʹXSEh.c9]7k]B[Oz ֫%l3~j^dn#dq9K8u&VPNq\qxzFpW(#Ir:b#\ % U @# 0c U N ^ 9 wE zI  4   m   ] #NEb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K   AST 0m 0D AUHP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0(I Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular)L  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt~(bk1tܥ3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 - -(|G2"$ !.8dd8         0  | d(|3 $ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 $ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#+#Ԉ &   July2000Session L XX #XX #InRe:ESTATEOF_PRATHER_ԀBUCHANANHARPERXX  J @@ AppealfromtheProbateCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.99P578FrankG.Clement,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200000553_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust8,2000   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Atestatorswilllefthispropertytospecifiedindividualsprovidedtheysurvivedhim.Thequestion x  wemustdecideiswhetherthe_antilapse_Ԁstatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.323105,savesthosecontingent d interestsforthebeneficiarieschildrenwhenallthespecifiedindividualspredeceasedthetestator. P TheProbateCourtofDavidsonCountyheldthatitdidnot.Weaffirm. <  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheProbateCourt d AffirmedandRemanded  P   #X#XX.BenH.Cantrell,P.J.,M.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamC.Koch,Jr. ( andWilliamB.Cain,JJ.,joined.  JamesR._Tomkins_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,_Donnie_ԀReed.  JordanS.Keller,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,Terry_Wickham_,LloydAnnMarston, t BrendaNortonandHowardEllisNorton. ` e OPINION #XX#XX 8!  #XX #  XX  _Prather_ԀBuchananHarperdiedonFebruary11,1999.Hiswillleftallofhisestatetohiswife #`" ifshesurvivedhimbymorethanthirtydaysandthenwentontoprovide: #L# 8  However,ifmywifedoesnotsurviveme,renouncesthesebequestsanddevisesor %$!% dissentsfrommywill,Igive,bequestanddevisealloftheforegoinginequalshares &"& tomysisterinlawJANIE_JAYE_Ԁandtomysister,MARYLOUNORTON,ifthey '"' bothshouldsurvivemeortothesurvivoroutrightifonlyoneshouldsurviveme.(#(     Thewillhadaresiduaryparagraph,butitsimplyrepeatedthedispositionmadeintheprior p*%* sectionofthewill. \+&+   H,',   OnOctober14,1999,theadministrator,_c.t.a._,petitionedtheProbateCourtofDavidson   Countyforaconstructionofthewill.Thepetitionallegedthatthetestatorswife,hissister,Mary  LouNorton,andhissisterinlaw,Janie_Jaye_,werealldeceasedatthetimeofthetestatorsdeath,  andsincethewilldidnothaveaprovisioncoveringthateventuality,theadministratorsoughtthe t courtsguidanceonthedistributionoftheestate. `   Mr.Harpersheirsandtheheirsofhissisterinlawfiledresponsestothepetition.Mr. 8  Harpersheirscontendedthattheestatepassedbyintestatesuccession.Janie_Jaye_sheirsasserted $ t thatthebequesttoherwaspreservedbythe_antilapse_Ԁstatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.323105.The  ` probatecourtheldthatthe_antilapse_Ԁstatutedidnotapplyandthattheestatepassedbyintestate  L  succession.  8  @) II.      Thepertinentpartofthe_antilapse_Ԁstatueisfoundinparagraph(a)ofTenn.CodeAnn.32   3105(Supp.1999):   8  (a)Wheneverthedeviseeorlegateeoranymemberofaclasstowhichan \ immediatedeviseorbequestismade,diesbeforethetestator...leavingissuewhich H survivesthetestator,theissueshalltaketheestateorinterestdevisedorbequeathed 4 whichthedeviseeorlegatee...wouldhavetaken,hadthatpersonsurvivedthe  p testator,unlessadifferentdispositionthereofismadeorrequiredbythewill. \     Althoughsomeearly_antilapse_Ԁstatutes,andthe1837EnglishWillsAct,weredesignedto 4 preventthelapseofdevisesandbequeststothechildrenorotherrelativesofthetestator,see1_Vict_.   ch.2633;Mass.Rev.Statsch.6224(1836),theTennessee_antilapse_Ԁstatutes,sincethefirstone   appearedin1842,havealwaysappliedto anypersonor anydeviseeorlegatee.In1941,the  legislatureamendedthestatutetoaddclassgiftstoitsprovisionsandthefirstsentencestartedlike  this: Wheneverthedeviseeorlegateetowhom,oranymemberofaclasstowhich,animmediate  deviseorbequestismade....See1941Tenn.PublicActsch.611.Thus,theword l  immediateappeared,andsomewonderedwhetherthestatutenowexemptedfutureorcontingent X  interests.Whenalawstudentpointedoutthisquestioninthe1987lawreviewarticle,thelegislature D! tookhisadviceandrewrotethefirstsentenceinitspresentform.SeeDavidR.Foster,Note, 0"  TestamentaryGiftsofFutureInterests:IsTherean ImmediateProblemwiththeTennessee #l! _Antilapse_ԀStatute?17Mem.St.U.L.Rev.263(1987).Asthe_statute_Ԁnowreads,theword $X"  immediatedefinesaclassandnotthetypeofdeviseincludedinthewill. $D #   Thequestionremains,however,whetherthe_antilapse_Ԁstatutehasanyeffectonintereststhat &"% aresubjecttotheconditionprecedentofsurvivingthetestator.Thestatuteisoneofseveralaidsto '#& helpthecourtsdeterminetheintentofthetestator,Weissv.BroadwayNationalBank,322S.W.2d (#' 427(Tenn.1959),anditshouldbeliberallyconstrued.Id.Thestatutepreservesdevisesorbequests )$( forthe issueofnamedbeneficiaries.Tenn.CodeAnn.323105(a).Ifthebeneficiaryunderthe |*%) willdiesbeforethetestatorandhasnosurvivingissuethestatuteisinapplicable.Dixonv.Cooper, h+&* 12_S.W._Ԁ445(Tenn.1889);Jonesv.Hunt,34_S.W._Ԁ693(1896);Garnerv.HomeBank&TrustCo.,  107S.W.2d223(Tenn.1937).Therefore,thestatuteisagapfillerthathelpstocarryoutthe  testatorspresumedintent;thepresumptionbeingthatifthetestatorthoughtenoughofthe  beneficiarytomakeanabsolutegifttohim/her,hewouldwantthebeneficiarysissuetotakethe t propertyifthebeneficiarypredeceasedthetestator. `   Anotherrulethecourtsrelyonisapresumptionthatthetestatordoesnotintendtodie 8  intestate._Ledbetter_Ԁv._Ledbetter_216S.W.2d718(Tenn.1949);_Brundige_Ԁv.Alexander,547S.W.2d $ t 232(Tenn.1976).Butwhenthetestatorswordsareundeniablyuncertainthelegalrulesofintestate  ` successionmustprevail.Garnerv.HomeBank&TrustCo.,107S.W.2d223(Tenn.1937).Byits  L  languagethestatutedeferstotheintentionofthetestatorbymakingitsoperationsubjecttoa  8   differentdisposition...madeorrequiredbythewill.Tenn.CodeAnn.323105(a).Inseeking $  toascertainthetestatorsintentthecourtmustdetermineitfromwhathehaswritteninthewilland   notfromwhatitissupposedheintended._Burdick_Ԁv._Gilpin_,325S.W.2d547(Tenn.1959).     Withthatrealizationwewouldhavetoconcludethatthe_antilapse_ԀstatutedoesnotaffectMr.   Harperswill.Thepartlefttothebeneficiariesisnotabsolute,butiscontingentonsurvivingMr. p Harper.Thewillclearlyindicatesanintentthattheissueofthenamedbeneficiarieswouldtake \ nothingifthenamedbeneficiariesdidnotsurviveMr.Harper.Interpretingastatutewithsimilar H languagetoTenn.CodeAnn.323105(a),theDistrictofColumbiaCircuitCourtsaid: 4 8   ` Asanexpedienttomitigatetherigorsofcommonlawdoctrine,the_antilapse_  \ statuteistobeinterpretedliberallywithaviewtoattainmentofitsbeneficent H objective.Torenderthestatuteinoperative,apurposeinconsistentwiththat 4 objectivemustfairlyappear,andfromthetermsofthewillitself.Infinalanalysis,   however,thestatutefurnishesbutaruleofconstructiontopilotthedecisionwhere   thewillindicateslittleornothingofthetestatorsdesiresonlapse.Where,onthe  otherhand,thewillreflectsacountervailingintentionwithreasonableclarity,the  statutedoesnotsavethegiftfromlapse.   8   ` Suchanintentionismanifested,andplainlyso,wherethewillarticulatesthe X  giftinwordseffectivelyconditioningitsefficacyuponthebeneficiaryssurvivalof D! thetestator.If,insuchasituation,thebeneficiarypredeceasesthetestator,the 0"  statutorybartolapseandtheconcomitantsubstitutionofissueinthebeneficiarys #l! steadareatwarwiththetestatorspurposethatthegiftshalltakeonlyintheevent $X" thatthebeneficiaryoutlivesthebenefactor.Notatallsurprisingly,then,thecases $D # teachthat_antilapse_Ԁlegislationhasnoapplicationtogiftslimitedtovestuponthe %0!$ beneficiaryssurvivalofthetestatorandnototherwise.Itmattersnot,inthis &"% connection,whetherthegiftistoasingleortomultiplebeneficiaries,orwhether '#& thereisorisnotalimitationovertoanotheruponthedeathoftheprimary (#' beneficiaryduringthelifetimeofthetestator.(Footnotesomitted))$(   InreEstateofFlorenceV.Kerr,433F.2d479,48384(D.C.Cir.1969). h+&* Ї  AsimilarresultwasreachedinInre_Wintermute_,127A.218(N.J.Eq.1925).Inthatcase  thewilllefttheresidueofthetestatrixestatetohertwosisters,but incaseatthetimeofmy  deceaseeitheroneofmysistersasaforesaidshouldnotbelivingthenitismywillandIdohereby  givethewholeofmyestatetotheonesurviving.Whenbothsisterspredeceasedthetestatrix,the t courtheldthatthe_antilapse_Ԁstatutehadnoapplicationbecause itisaimedatcaseswherethe ` testamentaryprovisionisnotlimitedbythenecessityofsurvivorshipinordertotake.127A.at L  218.ForcasestothesameeffectseeCentral_Natl_ԀBankv.Stevenson,25Del.Ch.215,16A.2d114, 8  116(1940);InreBarrettsEstate,159Fla.901,33So.2d159,161(1948);Powellv.Watkins,221 $ t Ga.851,148S.E.2d303,304305(1966);Inre_Gerdes_ԀEstate,245Iowa778,62N.W.2d777,780  ` (1954);Wallacev.Diehl,202N.Y.156,95_N.E._Ԁ646,650(1911);Dayv.Brooks,10OhioMisc.273,  L  224N.E.2d557,566,39OhioOp.2d441(1967);_Kunkel_Ԁv._Kunkel_,267Pa.163,110A.73,74  8  (1920);InReStewartsEstate,270Wis.610,72N.W.2d334,336(1955). $    Weacknowledgethatthecasesarenotunanimousinholdingthatthe_antilapse_Ԁstatutedoes   notapplytodevisesorbequestsmadecontingentonsurvivingthetestator.See_Galloupe_Ԁv.Blake,   248Mass.196,142_N.E._Ԁ818(1924).Andweareawareofourowncaseof_Bybee_Ԁv._Westrick_,896   S.W.2d792(Tenn.Ct.App.1994),but_Bybee_wasdecidedonanaltogetherdifferentpoint.Inthat p casethecourtconstruedthewilltoresolveapatentambiguityandfoundaclearintentonthepart \ ofthetestatortoleaveherpropertyjointlytohertwochildrenincaseoneofthempredeceasedher. H Underthecourtsconstructionthewillleftthetestatrixpropertytoherchildrenjointlyregardless 4 ofsurvivorship.  p   ThejudgmentofthecourtbelowisaffirmedandthecauseisremandedtotheCircuitCourt H ofDavidsonCountyforanyfurtherproceedingsnecessary.Taxthecostsonappealtotheappellant, 4 _Donnie_ԀReed.      `     h   _________________________________________ l    `     h   BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.