AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 30 and Title 32, relative to probate matters.
HB0906 revises Tennessee probate law in two main areas: creditor claims against estates and the proof required to admit certain wills to probate. On the creditor side, the bill clarifies that beneficiaries and creditors who want to object to another creditor’s claim must identify other claimants, file exceptions on time, and prosecute those exceptions themselves. It also requires that copies of any exception be sent to the estate’s personal representative and the representative’s attorney, and it expands notice language so heirs and devisees are informed of their right to except to claims.
On the wills side, the bill adds definitions for holographic wills, nuncupative wills, and written wills other than holographic wills, and it specifies the documentation and testimony needed to admit each type to probate in common form or solemn form. The measure lays out sworn petition requirements, witness affidavits, handwriting testimony for holographic wills, and notice and hearing requirements for solemn-form probate. Overall, the bill appears aimed at making probate procedures more explicit and standardized, especially for informal wills and disputes over estate claims.
The bill amends multiple sections of Titles 30 and 32 of the Tennessee Code Annotated, affecting estate administration, creditor-claim objections, and probate admission standards. It shifts procedural responsibility onto beneficiaries and creditors who challenge claims, and it creates more detailed statutory requirements for proving holographic, nuncupative, and other written wills in probate court. Personal representatives, heirs, devisees, creditors, attorneys, and probate clerks would all be affected by the new notice, filing, and evidentiary rules.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available record. Based on the text alone, the bill appears technical and procedural rather than ideological, suggesting a generally neutral or practical legislative intent to clarify probate practice. The absence of recorded controversy or amendments in the provided materials limits any stronger assessment of sentiment.
The most likely points of contention are the added burdens on beneficiaries and creditors who wish to challenge another creditor’s claim, since they must now track other claimants and ensure timely service of exceptions. Another possible issue is the bill’s detailed proof requirements for holographic and nuncupative wills, which could be seen as either improving reliability or making it harder to probate informal testamentary documents. No specific individuals or groups are identified in the provided materials as supporting or opposing these provisions.