Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-3-105 (2026)

Death of devisee or legatee before death of testator

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Whenever the devisee or legatee or any member of a class to which an immediate devise or bequest is made, dies before the testator, or is dead at the making of the will, leaving issue that survives the testator, the issue shall take the estate or interest devised or bequeathed that the devisee or legatee or the member of the class, as the case may be, would have taken, had that person survived the testator, unless a different disposition thereof is made or required by the will.

(b) Subsection (a) shall apply also to a revocable (living) trust that became irrevocable upon the death of its settlor or grantor. The surviving issue of a beneficiary who predeceased a settlor or grantor shall take the trust interest the beneficiary would have received had the beneficiary survived the settlor or grantor, unless the trust agreement provides otherwise.

Code 1858, § 2196 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 180, § 3); Shan., §3928; Code 1932, § 8134; Acts 1941, ch. 61, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 8134; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 32-306; Acts 1989, ch. 364, §4; 1997 , ch. 426, § 20.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: In Re Est. of McFarland, 167 S.W.3d 299 (Tenn. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Est. of McFarland, 167 S.W.3d 299 (Tenn. 2005). · cites it 9× “The Tennessee anti-lapse statute provides, in part: (a) Whenever the devisee or legatee or any member of a class to which an immediate devise or bequest is made, dies before the testator, or is dead at the making of the will, leaving issue which survives the testator, the issue…”

Heirs of Ellis v. Est. of Ellis, 71 S.W.3d 705 (Tenn. 2002). · cites it 2× “Importantly, the anti-lapse provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 32-3-105 (2001) do not apply to save these devises for the benefit of Mrs.”

In Re the Est. of Snapp, 233 S.W.3d 288 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Chancery Court for Washington County ruled that Tennessee’s anti-lapse statute, Tenn.Code Ann. § 32-3-105 applied to the gifts to Viola Swingle and Lena Mae Hart-sell because they died with issue, but the statute did not apply to the gift to Ann E.”

In Re Crowell, 154 S.W.3d 556 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-3-105 (2001). Item IV of the Will provides that “[i]n the event that me and my Husband should decease at the same time, it is my desire that my Executor dispose of all assets and any residue remaining in our estate be distributed” to the Claimants.”

In Re: The Est. of Wanda Jeanne Starkey, 556 S.W.3d 811 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “(b) Property prevented from passing to a former spouse because of revocation by divorce or annulment passes as if the former spouse failed to survive the decedent but § 32-3-105 shall not apply. Other provisions conferring some power or office on the former spouse are…”

In Re Walker, 849 S.W.2d 766 (Tenn. 1993). “(b) Property prevented from passing to a former spouse because of revocation by divorce or annulment passes as if the former spouse failed to survive the decedent but the provisions of § 32-3-105 shall not apply. Other provisions conferring some power or office on the former…”

Decker v. Meriwether, 708 S.W.2d 390 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Meriwether died intestate and predeceased his aunt, thus bringing into play the anti-lapse statute, T.C.A. § 32-3-105 (1984) which provides: 32-3-105.”

In re Est. of Hurdle, 868 S.W.2d 627 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “As such, appellants contend that under the Tennessee anti-lapse statute, T.C.A. § 32-3-105 1 , they are entitled to J.”

Bybee v. Westrick, 896 S.W.2d 792 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Deadman, the anti-lapse statute, T.C.A. § 32-3-105 notwithstanding.” 1 At the time the testatrix executed her Will on March 30, 1990, both of her children, Wanda Lee Deadman and William V.”

Ruotolo v. Tietjen, 890 A.2d 166 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006). “Laws § 33-6-19 (1995) (“unless a contrary intention shall appear by the will”); Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-3-105 (a) (2001) (“unless a different disposition thereof is made or required by the will”); Tex.”

Austin v. Austin, 920 S.W.2d 209 (Tenn. 1996). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 32-3-105 (Supp.1995), the disclaimed property passed to the testatrix’s children, equally.”

Hayduk v. Burke (In re Burke), 592 B.R. 834 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2018). · cites it 6× “§ 31-1-103 , Nekolia Beverly Grace Burke hereby irrevocably disclaims and renounces her entire interest in the residue of the estate of Beverly Kinser Swope to which she is otherwise entitled under Paragraph 3 of the aforesaid will, subject to her intention and expectation that…”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-3-105(a) — 2 cases

In Re Est. of Toni Harris (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).

In Re: Est. of Martha Woodard (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

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.