Where a bequest, devise, conveyance, transfer or gift is made to a class of persons subject to fluctuation by increase or diminution of its number in consequence of future births or deaths, and the time of payment, distribution, vestiture or enjoyment is fixed at a subsequent period or on the happening of a future event, and any member of the class dies before the arrival of that period or the happening of that event, and has issue surviving when the period arrives or the event happens, that issue shall take the share of the property that the member so dying would take if living, unless a clear intention to the contrary is manifested by the will, deed or other instrument.
Acts 1927, ch. 13, § 1; mod. Code 1932, §§ 7598, 8092; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 32-305.
Notes of Decisions
Rutherford Cnty. v. Wilson, 121 S.W.3d 591 (Tenn. 2003).
· cites it 14× “ctuation by increase or diminution of its number in consequence of future births or deaths, and the time of payment, distribution, vestiture or enjoyment is fixed at a subsequent period or on the happening of a future event, and any member of such class shall die before the…”
Est. of Robison v. Carter, 701 S.W.2d 218 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Section 32-3-104 and, therefore, to limit the class of beneficiaries to those “closest relatives” who were actually living at the time of his death.”
Harrell v. Harrell, 321 S.W.3d 508 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “” He attempts to tie this argument to the Class Gift Statute codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-3-104 (2007) 3 to reach the conclusion that “the *514 sons of John Robert Harrell — John Harvey Harrell and Donald Harrell — own the entire farm subject to the life estate of their…”
Rutherford Cnty. v. Martha Wilson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 12× “Baskin did not have an interest in the property because it determined the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-3-104 applied, and that pursuant to the case law interpreting this statute, “a class takes a vested, transmissible interest in the remainder.”
Rutherford Cnty. v. Martha Jordan Wilson (Tenn. 2003).
· cites it 6× “number in consequence of future births or deaths, and the time of payment, distribution, vestiture or enjoyment is fixed at a subsequent period or on the happening of a future event, and any member of such class shall die before the arrival of such period or the happening of…”
Iris Teresa Bowling Chambers v. Faye Bowling Devore (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-3-104 (1934). The Tennessee Class Gift Statute abolished a rule of construction known as the “Tennessee Class Doctrine,” which “held that remainders to a fluctuating class of persons remained contingent until the time set in the instrument for distribution…”
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.