Tennessee § 35-15-106 - Law supplemental to chapter — Applicability of certain sections of Restatement of Trusts.

§ 35-15-106. Law supplemental to chapter — Applicability of certain sections of Restatement of Trusts.

The common law of trusts and principles of equity supplement this chapter, except to the extent modified by this chapter or another statute of this state. Notwithstanding subsection (a): No provision in a trust directing or authorizing accumulation of trust income shall be invalid; and The traditional common law distinction between a discretionary trust and a support trust and the dual judicial review standards related to this distinction shall be maintained. Unless specifically provided otherwise in this chapter, courts shall not consult, rely on or give any persuasive value to the Restatement (Third) of Trusts §§ 50, 56, 58, 59 or 60, nor any of the comments under such sections or related thereto, none of which have any force or effect relative to trusts governed by the laws of this state. Acts 2004, ch. 537, § 7; 2013, ch. 390, § 7. Compiler's Notes. Acts 2013, ch. 390, § 55 provided that: (b) Except as otherwise provided in the act, on July 1, 2013: The act applies to all trusts created before, on, or after July 1, 2013; The act applies to all judicial proceedings concerning trusts commenced on or after July 1, 2013; The act applies to judicial proceedings concerning trusts commenced before July 1, 2013, unless the court finds that application of a particular provision of the act would substantially interfere with the effective conduct of the judicial proceedings or prejudice the rights of the parties, in which case the particular provision of the act does not apply and the superseded law applies; Any rule of construction or presumption provided in the act applies to trust instruments executed before July 1, 2013, unless there is a clear and express indication of a contrary intent in the terms of the trust; and An act done before July 1, 2013, is not affected by the act. Section Comment. According to ULC – NCCUSL, the Uniform Trust Code codifies those portions of the law of express trusts that are most amenable to codification. While the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code would agree that no code can cover all portions of the law of express trusts, the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code codifies meaningfully more of such portions than does the Uniform Trust Code. The additional codification of the law of express trusts in the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code is intentional and is designed to provide significantly more certainty than does the Uniform Trust Code over the law that will control a trust and its administration. This is in accordance with Tennessee’s emphasis on settlor’s intent and freedom of disposition. Nevertheless, because it is impossible to codify all portions of the law of express trust, to the extent such are not codified in the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code, such code is supplemented by the common law of trusts, including principles of equity. To determine the common law and principles of equity, a court or other body adjudicating or mediating a matter is instructed to look first to other portions of the Tennessee trust statutes, then to prior and contemporaneous Tennessee law. If a court or other body adjudicating or mediating a matter cannot resolve the matter using Tennessee law, it may then look to other law (excluding the law of any foreign country), including the various applicable restatements. Regardless, to the extent any other law is in conflict with Tennessee law, Tennessee law controls. The common law of trusts also includes the traditional and broad equitable jurisdiction of the court, which the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code in no way restricts. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, when considering law other than Tennessee law, courts and other bodies adjudicating or mediating a matter are instructed to be mindful of the following: Numerous provisions of title 35, chapters 6, 14 and 15 were modified and diverge, in some cases significantly, from their respective uniform codes and the Restatements of Trust, as well as from restatements covering fields of law that are related to, or impact upon, trusts. Moreover, there are no uniform code provisions addressing the subjects covered by title 35, chapters 16 and 17. Such resulting divergence was undertaken deliberately and after significant consideration. Taken as a whole, the Tennessee trust statutes are a distinct and integrated set of trust laws. It is for this reason that the provisions of T.C.A. § 35-15-1101 reverse those of section 1101 of the Uniform Trust Code and expressly state that in applying and construing title 35 no consideration shall be given to any need to promote uniformity with respect to its subject matter among states, including relative to the laws of any foreign jurisdiction that has enacted versions of the various uniform codes, laws or acts. Moreover, T.C.A. § 35-15-1101 provides that unless specifically provided otherwise in title 35, chapters 6, 14, 15, 16 and 17, courts shall not consult or give any persuasive value to any such uniform acts or any foreign jurisdiction’s acts based on or similar to them; or to the comments of any of them; none of which have any force or effect relative to trusts governed by the laws of Tennessee. The statutory text of the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code is also supplemented by these Comments, which, like the Comments to any uniform act, may be relied on as a guide for interpretation. See Acierno v. Worthy Bros. Pipeline Corp., 656 A.2d 1085, 1090 (Del. 1995) (interpreting Uniform Commercial Code); Yale University v. Blumenthal, 621 A.2d 1304, 1307 (Conn. 1993) (interpreting Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act); 2 Norman Singer, Statutory Construction Section 52.05 (6th ed. 2000); Jack Davies, Legislative Law and Process in a Nutshell Section 55-4 (2d ed. 1986). If a right is acquired, extinguished, or barred upon the expiration of a prescribed period that has commenced to run under any other statute before July 1, 2013, that statute continues to apply to the right even if it has been repealed or superseded.