As s t at ed by t h e maj or i t y i n foot n ot e 5, t h e moder n “ r ema i n i n t h e r es i du e r u l e” h as bee n adopt ed, mos t l y by 1

s t at ut e, i n a n ove r whe l mi ng major i t y of j ur i s di ct i ons

. A t l eas t f our j ur i s di ct i ons ha ve adop t ed t he mo dern r ul e v i a j udi ci al d e c i s i o n

. S e e , e

. g

. , C o r b e t t v

. S k a g g s , 2 0 7 P

. 8 1 9
, 8 2 2 ( Ka n

. 1 9 2 2 ) ; I n r e F r o l i c h E s t a t e , 2 9 5 A

. 2 d 4 4 8
, 4 5 2 ( N. H. 1972) ; Commer ce N at ’ l B an k of T ol edo v

. B r own i n g , 107 N

. E. 2d 120, 126 ( O h i o 1952) ; I n r e Sl ac k T r u s t , 220 A. 2d 4 7 2
, 47 4 (V t

. 19 6 6 ). 

### IN THE S UP REME COURT OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE Ma y 3, 200 5 S es sio n



### I N RE 

### ESTATE OF MERLE JEF FE RS M C 

### FA RL AND

Appeal by p erm ission from the Court of Appeals, Eastern Section

Chancery Court

for Haw kin s County No. 3554 Hon. Th om as R. F rier son, II, Ch ancellor

No. E2003-01833-SC-R9- CV - F iled Jul y 7, 2005

F RAN K F. D R OW OT A , III
, C.J
., d i s s en t i n g.

I respe ctfully

dissent. The question in this case is whe ther, whe n a will includes a r esiduary clause with two or more be nefic iaries, a lapsed residuary g ift is to be dis tributed among surviving residuary benef iciarie s or among the testator’s intestate heirs. The majority rea ffirms For d v. For d, 31 Tenn. 431, 435 (1852), which holds that a lapse d residuary g ift passes via intestate succe ssion. I would overr

ule Fo rd and hold that whe re the residue of a will is devised to two or more pe rsons

a nd th e sha

re of on e fa ils , th a t sh are pa sse s to the oth e r r e sid ua ry de vis e e s in pr op ortio n to the ir residuary interests. See U nif. Probate Code § 2- 606(b), 8 U.L .A. 427 (1998); see also Restatement (T hir d) of Pr op e rty : Wills & Oth e r Do na tiv e Tr a ns fe rs § 5.5 c mt. o (19 99 ). Con se qu e ntl y , in thi s 1

case I wo u l d distribute the lapsed re siduary g ifts proportionally

among the surviving residuary benef iciarie s of the McF arla nd will rather tha n via the laws of intestate succ ession.

I would adopt the moder n “re main in the residue” rule for the fo l l o wi n g rea sons. First, I thi nk that the mod e rn ru le wo uldbe tte r a pp ro xima te the a ve ra g e te sta tor ’s lik e ly int e nt. Se e Cor

be tt v. Skag g s, 207 P. 819, 8 2 1 (Kan. 1922); I n re Frolich Estate, 295 A .2d 448, 451–52 (N.H. 1972) ; I n re G ray ’s Estate, 23 A. 205, 206 ( Pa. 1892). To be sure, both the Eng lish “no residue of a re sidue”

ru le a nd the mod e rn ru le inv olv e a c e rt a in d e g re e of arb itr ari ne ss be c a us e e a c h r ule is d e sig ne d to control distribution where a testator has failed to provide express direction. Ye t in myview, g iven the lack of

express direction, it is reasona ble to presume t h at b y choosi ng to make a w ill which includes a r esiduary

clause , a testator w ould prefe r lapse d re s i d u ary g ifts to go to the r emaining-2-

na me d r e sid ua

ry be ne fi c iari e s r a the r tha n to int e sta te he ir s. As fo r thi s case , I thi nk that sl ig htl y enlar g ing the share s of named r esiduary benef iciarie s would more likely match the testa trix ’s intent tha n wou ld dis tr ibu tin g the laps e d sha re s to per so ns wh om she po te nti a lly didno t e ve n in c lud e in her w ill.

Af te r a ll, the ve ry

pu rp os e of

a re sid ua ry c la us e is t o f

un c tio n a s a dr a g ne t f

or de vis ing pa

rt s of a te stator’s esta te not otherwise disposed of. See Oliver v. Wells, 173 N.E. 676, 678 (N.Y. 1930) (desc ribing a re siduary

clause as m anife sting the intent that “the gift shall be a dr ag net that will cover

every interest not ef

fec tively disposed o f otherw ise”). In light of this purpose, in the a bsence of

e xpre ss d ir e c tio n, it i s e nti re ly se ns ibl e to g a the r u p la ps e d r e sid ua

ry g if ts a nd fo ld the m ba c k in to the share s of survivi ng residuary benef iciarie s. See C orbett, 207 P. at 822 (“The rea sons for allowing lapsed spec ific leg acie s to fall into the residue a pply with equal fo rce in favor of allowing all the

r e s id u e to g o to th e s u r v iv in g r e s id u ar y le g a te e s in c a s e o f th e d e a th o f o n e o f th e m, in s te ad of turning over a

part of it to per sons for whom other provision had bee n made, or who had not been ref err ed to in the will at all.”).

Se c on d, by de vis ing laps e d re sid ua ry g if ts, the mod e rn ru le wo uld thu s c los e ly c omp ort w ith the established pr esumpti o n ag ainst partial intestac y , which is itself aimed a t reinfor cing
testamentary

intent. See Corbett, 207 P. at 822; see also I n re Frolich Estate, 295 A.2d at 452; I n re Slack Trust, 220 A.2d 472, 472–74 (V t. 1966). I t i s well s ettled in Tenne ssee that in construing wills, courts are to strive t o asce rtain and to e ffe ctuate the testator’s intent, unless prohibited by law or public policy . I n re Esta te of Vinc ent, 98 S.W.3d 146, 150 (Tenn. 2003); Wil lia m s o n v. Br ownlow, 410 S.W.2d 878, 880 (Tenn. 1967). And a s we e x plained in Will iamson,

[i ]t is equally

fix ed in the jurisprude nce of this S tate that it will be presumed that one wh o u nd e rt a ke s to make a wi ll d oe s n ot i ntend to di e in te sta te a s to a ny of his
property ; and, if po s s i b l e, co urts will construe a w ill so t hat it disposes of all the
te sta tor ’s pr op e rt y

if su c h c a n b e do ne by any fa ir int e rp re ta tio n o r a llo wa ble implications from the words used.

41 0 S.W.2 d at 880 –8 1; se e a lso I n re Wal ke r, 84 9 S.W.2 d 7 66 , 7 68 (T e nn . 1 99 3) . A re sid ua ry c laus e

o n l y “ s t r e n g t h e n s t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a tt h e t e s t a t o r i n t e n d e d h i s e n t i r e e s t a t e t o p a s s b y h i s w i l l

. ” In

re F ro lic h E sta te , 2 95 A. 2d a t 4 52

. Mo reove r, in m y vie w s uc h a

pr e su mpt ion is e sp e c ia lly

app lic able to u ns kil lf

ull y dr a ft e d w ill s, su c h a s the ho log ra ph in thi s c a se , wh ic h are to be lib e ra lly construed, se e Ga

rner v. Be cton, 212 S.W.2d 890, 891 (Tenn. 1948).

Third, I do not think tha t o v er t urning For d by adopting the modern r

ule would violate the principles of star e dec isis. The rec og nition of the “no re si d u e o f a residue” rule in F ord, an 1852 decision, had ne ver be en rea ffirme d by this Court. Further, only a sing le re ported Te nnessee Court of Appe als dec ision has applied this holding of F ord. See D avis v. An t h o n y , 384 S.W .2d 60, 63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964). I firmly ag ree with the m ajority that “[i] t is our duty

to observe the doctrine of sta re de c isi s a s o ne of

c omm a nd ing imp orta nc e g ivi ng a s it do e s f ir mne ss a nd sta

bil ity to pr inc ipl e s o f l a w e vid e nc e d b y jud ic ia l de c isi on s. ” Me tr o. Go v’ t of Na sh vil le & Da vid so n Co un ty-3-

v. Poe , 3 83 S.W. 2d 26 5, 27 7 ( Te nn . 1 96 4) . A t th e sa me tim e , h ow e ve r, the Cou rt “ sh ou ld n ot c los e its doors to the chang ing conditions, but should so fashion its opinions that the new tr uly g rows out of the old as the pr oduct of a chang ing e nvironment.” I d.

I n conclusion, just as we ha ve appr opriately modernized o th e r

E n g li s hc o mm o n law d octrines in th e ar ea o f wil ls and estates, I think it appropriate now to upda te our rule conce rning the distribution of lapsed residuary g ifts. Accor ding to I n re G ray ’s Estate, the “no re sidue of a r esidue”

ru le re fl e c ts a “ c on c e ssi on to the se t po lic y of En g lis h la w

. . . to ke e p th e de vo lut ion of pr op e rt y in the re g ular c hannels, to the he irs and the ne x t of kin, whenev er it can be done .” 23 A. a t 206. I would adopt the “r emain in the re s i d u e” rule a s more consona nt with our modern conc eptions of
te sta me nta

ry int e nt.

I am authorized to state that Just ice Holde r j o i n s wi th me in this di ssenting opinion.

______________________________________ F RA NK F . D RO WOT A, I I I , CH I EF JUSTI CE