The case involves the will of Dr. Hillery Key, who died in 1912, leaving a holographic will that bequeathed his real estate to his children for life, then to his grandchildren for life, and finally to his great-grandchildren until they reached adulthood. Following the death of the last grandchild in 1992, Dr. Key's great-grandchildren petitioned the court for interpretation of the will. The trial court determined that the remainder interest was to be divided among the great-grandchildren per stirpes, which means that descendants inherit through their deceased ancestors.
The appellant, Reverend Vernon R. White, contended that the division should be per capita, meaning each great-grandchild would receive an equal share, with shares of deceased great-grandchildren passing to their children. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding that the per stirpes interpretation aligned with Tennessee's laws of intestate succession. The trial court had previously ruled that the will's language did not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities. The appellate court reviewed the matter de novo, emphasizing the importance of discerning and giving effect to the testator's intent, provided it does not violate legal rules or public policy.
In Briggs v. Estate of Briggs, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's interpretation of Dr. Key's Will, emphasizing that the Will's plain language should guide its administration. The appeal was deemed to be filed solely by Appellant Vernon White, as he lacked authority to represent the other listed parties. The court clarified that the Will stipulates that the estate will be divided according to intestate succession law once the last grandchild passes and great-grandchildren reach adulthood. Under Tennessee Code Annotated § 31-2-104(b)(1), the estate should be distributed to the issue of the decedent by representation (per stirpes), given the unequal kinship among the heirs. The trial court's conclusion that the Will intended a per stirpes distribution was supported by this statutory framework, with no evidence presented to suggest otherwise. Appellant's claims regarding Dr. Key's intentions, based on conversations not recorded in the appellate record, were insufficient to challenge the court's ruling. Consequently, the trial court's decision was upheld, with costs of the appeal assigned to Appellant Vernon White and his surety.
