## Facts

- A.A. Hankins died testate in 1952, devising all his real property to his wife, Sarah Elizabeth Hankins, for life.
- The will then devised two tracts (about 25 acres and 30 acres) to his nephew, Jim Grubb, after Sarah’s death.
- The devise to Grubb required him to keep the property for ten years before selling, mortgaging, encumbering, or otherwise disposing of it.
- The will provided that if Grubb attempted such a transfer within the ten-year period, the tracts would revert to A.A. Hankins’s heirs at law.
- The 25-acre tract had been acquired during a period in which spouses held as tenants in common; A.A. owned only his undivided interest, while Sarah owned the other undivided interest.
- Sarah’s will devised her own property, including her undivided interest in the 25-acre tract, to James A. Grubb.
- After Sarah’s death, Jim Grubb conveyed interests in the tracts to Virgil Mathews and others before the ten-year period expired.
- A.A. Hankins’s heirs sued, alleging the attempted conveyances triggered the reverter and seeking declarations of ownership, sale and division (as to the 25-acre tract), rents and profits, and cancellation of the deeds.

## Issues

1. Whether a testamentary clause requiring a remainderman to refrain from selling or encumbering devised land for ten years, with forfeiture and reverter upon violation, is an invalid restraint on alienation.
2. Whether the clause instead creates a defeasible fee in the remainderman that terminates upon an attempted conveyance within the stated period.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the chancery court’s decree sustaining defendants’ demurrer and dismissing the complaint.
- The court held the will created in Jim Grubb a defeasible fee (base/determinable fee or fee subject to condition), limited by the ten-year alienation condition and reverter to A.A. Hankins’s heirs.
- The court ruled the ten-year limitation, enforced by forfeiture and reverter, was valid and not void as a repugnant restraint on an absolute fee simple.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, with the heirs’ reversionary claim legally sufficient if the alleged early conveyance were proven.

## Legal Principles

- A will is construed to effect the testator’s intent when consistent with law, and clear reverter language will be given operative effect.
- An invalid restraint occurs when an absolute fee simple is granted and a separate inconsistent restriction on alienation is added; by contrast, a defeasible estate may be created from the outset with a condition that can terminate the estate.
- A time-limited condition restricting alienation, coupled with forfeiture and reverter upon breach, can be a valid conditional limitation defining the estate conveyed rather than an impermissible restraint on alienation.
- On demurrer, well-pleaded allegations are taken as true; if the complaint alleges the condition-triggering event occurred, the reverter claim may proceed.

## Conclusion

The court held that the ten-year non-alienation clause with a reverter created a valid defeasible fee in the devisee, so the heirs stated a claim that title reverted upon an attempted conveyance within the restricted period, requiring reversal of the dismissal and remand.


Hankins v. Mathews, 221 Tenn. 190 (1968)