## Facts

- W.C. Alsup died in 1920; his will devised separate farms (about 200 acres each) to his three daughters for life, with remainders to their children/issue and alternative remainders to sisters or their heirs if a daughter died without issue.
- The will included an express clause that the land “shall not be sold or alienated” during the daughters’ lives and that “no court shall sell the same for reinvestment or alter the situation” of the land.
- By 1924 the family lived in California and did not farm; for decades the farms were rented or share-cropped and at times placed in a federal program paying rent for leaving land fallow.
- The land and improvements deteriorated, and continued retention in farm form was alleged to be economically impractical and inconsistent with the estate’s beneficial purposes.
- Two daughters were unmarried and had no issue; the third daughter had adult children (joined as complainants).
- Minor descendants of the third daughter’s line were named as defendants individually and as representatives of the class of possible contingent remaindermen.
- The life tenants and certain descendants filed in chancery seeking a judicial sale and reinvestment of proceeds; the case was tried on stipulated facts.
- The chancellor found a material change in conditions and ordered sale and reinvestment; minor remaindermen appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a will provision barring sale or alienation of land during the lives of legal life tenants, and purporting to bar courts from ordering a sale for reinvestment, is a valid restraint on alienation.
2. Whether a court of equity may order sale of the devised land and reinvestment of the proceeds when materially changed circumstances make the sale advantageous to life tenants and contingent remaindermen and necessary to effectuate the testator’s primary intent.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the decree ordering sale and reinvestment.
- The court held the restraint on alienation attached to the daughters’ legal life estates was invalid.
- The court held chancery had authority to order sale and reinvestment because changed circumstances made the relief advantageous to all interested parties and consistent with the will’s substantive purpose.
- The court concluded the remaindermen’s interests were protected because proceeds would be reinvested under court supervision, preserving the future interests though changing the form of the property.

## Legal Principles

- A direct restraint that removes a legal life tenant’s power to alienate the life estate is generally void as repugnant to the estate granted.
- Equity may authorize sale and reinvestment of property subject to successive interests when unforeseen, material changes in circumstances would otherwise defeat or substantially impair the testamentary plan.
- A court-ordered sale with reinvestment may preserve contingent remaindermen’s interests by converting the property from land to reinvested proceeds without terminating the future estates.
- Even strong testamentary language attempting to bar judicial sale does not eliminate equitable authority to protect the beneficiaries’ interests when necessary to carry out the will’s primary purpose.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a chancery-ordered sale and reinvestment of devised farmland, holding that an absolute testamentary ban on alienation during life tenancies was invalid and that equity could order conversion and reinvestment when materially changed circumstances made it beneficial to both life tenants and contingent remaindermen and necessary to fulfill the will’s substantive intent.


Alsup v. Montoya, 488 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1972)