Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-3-101 (2026)

Operation of will

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A will shall be construed, in reference to the real and personal estate comprised in it, to speak and take effect as if it had been executed immediately before the death of the testator, and shall convey all the real estate belonging to the testator, or in which the testator had any interest at the testator's decease, unless a contrary intention appear by its words in context.

Code 1858, § 2195 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 180, § 2); Shan., §3927; Code 1932, § 8133; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 32-301.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: In Re Est. of McFarland, 167 S.W.3d 299 (Tenn. 2005).
In Re Est. of McFarland, 167 S.W.3d 299 (Tenn. 2005). · cites it 8× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 32-3-101 (2001); In re Walker, 849 S.”
Daugherty v. Daugherty, 784 S.W.2d 650 (Tenn. 1990). · cites it 8× “Shannon, supra; T.C.A. § 32-3-101. The will leaves the testator’s estate to the three sons for life.”
Fell v. Rambo, 36 S.W.3d 837 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 32-3-101 (1984). 12 See Calhoun v.”
Stickley v. Carmichael, 850 S.W.2d 127 (Tenn. 1992). · cites it 4× “The Court held that the question was controlled by Code Section 8133, currently Tenn.Code Ann. § 32-3-101 (1984), which provides: Operation of will.”
Est. of Hamilton v. Morris, 67 S.W.3d 786 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Appellants presented no evidence that any of the beneficiaries other than possibly Jimmy Evans exerted undue influence upon Ms. Hamilton, and the sections in the 1987 Will relating to Jimmy Evans are clearly separable from those relating to the other beneficiaries.”
Presley v. Hanks, 782 S.W.2d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “T.C.A. § 32-3-101 (1984). In construing a will it is necessary to look to the entire will and the testator’s intention must be determined from what he has written and not from what it is supposed he intended.”
In Re the Est. of Milam, 181 S.W.3d 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 32-3-101 (2003). Since this statute is in derogation of the common law, it must be strictly construed.”
In Re Walker, 849 S.W.2d 766 (Tenn. 1993). · cites it 2× “The common law presumption against partial intestacy, codified in T.C.A. § 32-3-101 (1984) is “applicable when the words used, by any fair interpretation, will embrace the property not otherwise devised, unless a contrary intention appears from the context.”
Williams v. Est. of Williams, 865 S.W.2d 3 (Tenn. 1993). · cites it 2× “The majority in White based its decision on that portion of what is now T.C.A. § 32-3-101 (1984) which provides: A will .”
Est. of Gladys Tipler, 10 S.W.3d 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “The codicil in this case must be considered in light of two important common law principles regarding will construction: the presumption against intestacy and the weight given to the testator’s intent.”
In Re the Est. of Snapp, 233 S.W.3d 288 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “” In re Estate of McFarland, at 303; see also T.C.A. § 32-3-101 (2001) (codification of *293 the common law presumption).”
Third Nat'l Bank in Nashville v. Stevens, 755 S.W.2d 459 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). “*463 § 32-3-101; Bell v. Shannon, 212 Tenn. 28 , 367 S.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.