## Facts

- Betty Condra executed a will that made several specific gifts and included a residuary clause: “All of the rest or residue of my estate, I give, devise and bequeath to my dear husband, R.W. Condra, in fee simple and absolutely.”
- On June 22, 1974, Betty and her husband, R.W., were killed in an automobile–train collision.
- The circumstances provided no sufficient evidence that either spouse survived the other.
- Betty’s will contained no clause directing what should happen if she and R.W. died in a common disaster or at the same time.
- Betty had no children.
- R.W. had four children from a prior marriage (R.W.’s children).
- Harold T. Brundige, as executor of Betty’s estate, and R.W.’s children sued to construe the will and to have the residuary estate pass to R.W.’s children under Tennessee’s antilapse statute.
- Betty’s intestate heirs (including Addie Ford Alexander) argued that the antilapse statute did not apply because there was no proof that R.W. died before Betty, and that the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act did not create a presumption that Betty survived R.W.
- Betty and R.W. also owned savings certificates as tenants by the entirety.
- Betty’s heirs contended that the savings certificates were not controlled by the will (and thus not subject to antilapse) and that, given the simultaneous deaths, at least a one-half interest should pass to Betty’s heirs by intestacy.
- The trial court held that the residuary devise lapsed and that the residuary estate passed to Betty’s heirs by intestate succession; it also awarded a one-half interest in the savings certificates to Betty’s heirs.
- Brundige and R.W.’s children appealed.

## Issues

1. When a testatrix and her residuary legatee spouse die in a common disaster with no sufficient evidence of survivorship, does Tennessee’s Uniform Simultaneous Death Act require treating the spouse as having died before the testatrix so that the antilapse statute substitutes the spouse’s issue to take the residuary?
2. Does the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act govern savings certificates held by husband and wife as tenants by the entirety so that the certificates pass through the testatrix’s estate under her will (including the residuary clause and antilapse), rather than partly by intestacy to the testatrix’s heirs?

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s distribution of the residuary estate.
- Reading the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act together with the antilapse statute, the court held the residuary gift to R.W. did not lapse; R.W. was treated as having died before Betty for purposes of devolution, and his surviving issue took the residuary.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court also rejected the trial court’s ruling that Betty’s heirs took a one-half interest in the tenancy-by-the-entirety savings certificates.
- Applying the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act to the certificates, the court treated Betty as the survivor as to her property for distribution purposes, bringing the certificates into her estate to pass under her will; because the residuary passed by antilapse, R.W.’s children (not Betty’s heirs) received the benefit.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s construction of the statutes and the will.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes addressing the same distribution problem should be read together when possible, so each is given effect.
- Under the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act, when “title to property or the devolution thereof depends upon priority of death” and there is no sufficient evidence of survivorship, the law supplies a distribution rule directing that each decedent’s property be disposed of “as if he had survived.”
- Tennessee’s antilapse statute prevents a gift from failing when a named devisee or legatee dies before the testator and leaves issue who survive the testator; the issue take what the deceased devisee would have taken if living, unless the will requires a different result.
- In a simultaneous-death setting, the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act can satisfy the “dies before the testator” condition for antilapse by treating the beneficiary as having predeceased the testator for purposes of distributing the testator’s property.
- When spouses hold property as tenants by the entirety and priority of death cannot be proved, the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act governs devolution of the interest; the court may treat the testatrix as the survivor for purposes of distributing her property, allowing the property to pass under her will rather than by intestacy.

## Conclusion

Because there was no sufficient evidence that either spouse survived the other, the Tennessee Supreme Court applied the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act as a rule of devolution and read it with the antilapse statute, holding that Betty Condra’s residuary estate passed to R.W. Condra’s four children and that the tenancy-by-the-entirety savings certificates likewise passed through Betty’s estate under her will (via the residuary clause and antilapse), not to Betty’s heirs under intestacy.


Brundige v. Alexander, 547 S.W.2d 232 (1976)