Tennessee Anti-Lapse Case

In In re Estate of Snapp, the court addressed the application of Tennessee’s anti-lapse statute. Cleo M. Snapp passed away in 2005.  Her will was probated, and the Executor filed a “Declaratory Action to Interpret Will” on March 29, 2005.

The two provisions at issue were Items VII and VIII of the will. Item VII disposed of Cleo’s ¼ interest in Juanita Farm. It was devised to her sisters, Viola Swingle, Anne Fowler, and Lena Mae Hartsell. Item VIII left the residue of Cleo’s estate to her three sisters. Each provision contained an identical survivorship clause, which read: “PROVIDED, HOWEVER, if any sister should predecease me, then, in that event, the surviving sister(s) shall take the deceased sister’s share.”

All three of Cleo’s sisters pre-deceased her: Viola Swingle in 1987, Anne Fowler in 1997, and Lena Mae Hartsell in 2002. The probate court found that the anti-lapse statute applied to the gifts to Swingle and Hartsell because they passed with issue.  However, the statute did not apply to the gift to Fowler, as she had not left issue. The probate court then found that, since Cleo had made it clear that the natural objects of her bounty were her surviving sisters, the interest in Juanity Farm and the residue would be divided 50/50 among the issue of Swingle and Hartsell.

The Appellate Court reversed, saying that

[T]he anti-lapse statute [is] inapplicable because the will’s survivorship language indicated an intent that the issue of the named beneficiaries would take nothing if the named beneficiaries did not survive. (internal quotations omitted).

We conclude that the anti-lapse statute does not apply to the gifts in items VII and VIII of the Will, and the testatrix’s devise of her interest in the Juanita Farm falls to the residuary estate. * * * Since the entire residuary estate has lapsed, the entire residuary estate will pass by intestate succession.