The Tennessee statute creates a rebuttable presumption that any transfer or conveyance of property to a child shall be treated as an advancement. The above evidence would seem adequate to rebut the presumption but the court went further and stated that, without regard to this evidence, the transfer was not to be so treated since an advancement must be irrevocable and in presentae. Query, if this language may not be misleading and cause confusion in later cases. American case law does not require that an advancement be irrevocable. Thus the proceeds of a life insurance policy, though the decedent retained the right to change the beneficiary, has been treated as an advancement. Further, future interests may constitute an advancement as where Father conveys Blackacre to son, reserving a life estate. It should also be noted that the transfer in the instant case was not subject to revocation by the grantor. The result, however, seems correct since the deed of gift with the retained reversionary interest, preceding the contingent executory interest to the son, may well be thought of as inconsistent with an intent to make an advancement.
W. J. Bowe,
Wills, Trusts and Estates,
9 Vanderbilt Law Review
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol9/iss5/21