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

Rule:

To be a "bodily heir" of a life tenant, one must be both a "lineal descendant" and an intestate "heir." "Lineal descendant" is defined as a blood relative in the direct line of descent, including children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. It is clear that biological grandchildren are lineal descendants of their grandparents.

Facts:

Robert Milton Stone’s Will devised five tracts of land at issue. Testator's daughter, Nellie Stone Bowling, was granted a life estate in four tracts, totaling 1070 acres. Upon Nellie's death, the Will provided that the lands will be given to Nellie’s bodily heirs. Nellie died on May 8, 2006, at the age of 101. Helen Mabel McKnight was her only surviving child, as Nellie’s two sons, Robert Milton Bowling and T.W Bowling, III, predeceased her. However, Nellie had four surviving grandchildren, all children of T.W.: Iris Teresa Bowling Chambers (sometimes hereinafter "Appellant"); Faye Bowling Devore, Tannis Ann Bowling Pleasants, and Allan Bruce Bowling, T.W.'s adopted child. In September 2007, Nellie’s granddaughter, Iris, filed a Complaint to Determine Heirship to Quiet Title and for Partition, seeking a determination of her rights in the subject property and alleging that she was entitled to take directly as a "bodily heir" of the life tenant. Iris' siblings, Faye, Tannis, and Allan, as well as Iris' aunt, Helen, filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The motions argued that Iris lacked standing to file the complaints, as Helen, Nellie's only surviving child, owned 100% of the fee simple title to the property. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss. 

Issue:

Was appellant the life tenant’s bodily heir who may be entitled to take on the testator’s will? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The instant court found that because the Will conveyed the subject property, upon the daughter's death, to the daughter's "bodily heirs," a clear intention to create a contingent remainder was shown. The daughter's son's interest in the property was contingent upon his survival to the termination of the daughter's life estate. Thus, when he predeceased the daughter, his interest was extinguished. Accordingly, his issue were not entitled to take his share pursuant to the Class Gift Statute. Next, the instant court found that if appellant was both the daughter's "heir" and her "lineal descendant," she was also her "bodily heir." Thus, appellant was potentially a member of the class of the daughter's "bodily heirs" to whom Testator's land was devised at the daughter's death.