Chambers v. Devore - No. W2008-02548-COA-R3-CV, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 754 (Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2009)

Rule:

When a limitation is in favor of the "heirs of the body" of a designated person then, unless a contrary intent of the conveyor is found from additional language or circumstances, the persons so described by the limitation as conveyees are the lineal descendants of the designated ancestor who under the applicable local law would succeed to the property if such ancestor died owning the property and intestate at the time when the group is to be ascertained. Thus, "bodily heirs" must be not only lineal descendants, but also must be the intestate heirs of the person.

Facts:

Robert Milton Stone’s will, probated in 1942, granted a life estate in four tracts of land to Stone’s daughter, Nellie Stone Bowling, and upon Nellie’s death, to Nellie’s bodily heirs. At the time of Nellie’s death, she had one surviving child and four surviving grandchildren, all children of T.W. Bowling, III - Nellie’s son who predeceased her. In September 2007, Nellie’s granddaughter, Iris Teresa Bowling Chambers filed a “Complaint to Determine Heirship, to Quiet Title and for partition” in the Chancery Court, seeking a determination of her rights in the subject property. Iris’ siblings filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, arguing that Iris lacked standing to file the complaints, as Helen Mabel McKnight, Nellie’s only surviving child, owned 100% of the fee simple title to the property. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that by using the term “bodily heirs,” Robert Milton Stone created a contingent remainder and since T.W. Bowling Chambers predeceased the life tenant, his interest lapsed and his issue, including the plaintiff Iris, were precluded from taking the share that T.W. Bowling, III would have taken had he survived the life tenant. The trial court further held that defendant Helen Mabel McKnight, who survived the life tenant, was the 100% owner of the property at issue. Iris appealed, contending that she was entitled to take directly as a “bodily heir” of the life tenant, Nellie.

Issue:

Was the issue of a child who predeceased the life tenant included within the class of “bodily heirs” of the life tenant?

Answer:

Yes, if the child was both the life tenant’s heir and lineal descendant.

Conclusion:

The Court of Appeals found that because the Will conveyed the subject property, upon the Nellie’s death, to Nellie’s "bodily heirs," a clear intention to create a contingent remainder was shown. According to the Court, Iris’ interest in the property was contingent upon her father’s survival to the termination of the Nellie’s life estate. Thus, when T.W. Bowling Chambers predeceased Nellie, his interest was extinguished. Accordingly, his issue was not entitled to take his share pursuant to the Class Gift Statute. However, the Court found that if Iris was both Nellie’s "heir" and her "lineal descendant," she was also her "bodily heir." Thus, Nellie was potentially a member of the class of Nellie’s "bodily heirs" to whom Testator's land was devised at the Nellie’s death. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was reversed and the matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.