## Facts

- General Ogle died in 1984, leaving a will with a residuary clause devising the remainder of his estate to his wife, Loretta Sutton Ogle, “for her lifetime,” and “at her death the remainder, if any at that time,” to be divided equally among his three children from a prior marriage.
- The devise included a residence owned by General Ogle at death.
- After General Ogle’s death, Loretta executed a warranty deed purporting to convey the residence in fee simple to her son from a prior marriage, Fred Loveday.
- Loretta and Loveday filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Loretta held a life estate coupled with an unlimited power of disposition, permitting her to convey fee simple title.
- The three children (named as remaindermen) asserted Loretta held only a life estate and that her deed could not defeat their remainder interests.

## Issues

1. Whether the will’s language granting the widow the estate “for her lifetime” with the remainder “if any” at her death created only a life estate with remainders in the children, or instead a life estate coupled with an unlimited power of disposition.
2. Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-1-106 enlarged the widow’s life estate into a fee absolute as to the right of disposition absent an express grant of an unlimited power to dispose of the property.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court.
- The Court held the will granted Loretta only a life estate and did not expressly confer an unlimited power of disposition under Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-1-106.
- Loretta’s deed could convey no more than her life estate and was ineffective to extinguish the children’s remainder interests.

## Legal Principles

- A will is construed to effectuate the testator’s intent as expressed within the four corners of the instrument.
- Language devising property to a spouse “for her lifetime” ordinarily creates a life estate, with a remainder to designated remaindermen.
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-1-106 enlarges a life estate into a fee absolute as to the right of disposition only when an unlimited power of disposition is expressly granted in the instrument.
- Remainder language such as “the remainder, if any” does not, without an express disposal power, authorize the life tenant to convey the fee and defeat vested remainders.

## Conclusion

The court construed the will to grant the widow a life estate only, concluding that “if any” remainder language did not expressly give an unlimited power of disposition; therefore, the widow could not convey fee simple title, and the remaindermen’s interests remained intact.


Ogle v. Ogle, 880 S.W.2d 668 (Tenn. 1994)