Knopf v. Gray - 545 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. 2018)

Rule:

The cardinal rule of will construction is to ascertain the testator's intent and to enforce that intent to the extent allowed by law. The court looks to the instrument's language, considering its provisions as a whole and attempting to harmonize them so as to give effect to the will's overall intent. The court interprets the words in a will as a layperson would use them absent evidence that the testator received legal assistance in drafting the will or was otherwise familiar with technical meanings.

Facts:

Vada Wallace Allen's will disposed of her entire estate, including the land at issue in this case which was approximately 316 acres of land in Robertson County. The provision began with a residuary bequest to her son, respondent William Robert Gray. The residuary bequest was immediately followed by instructional language referencing the land included in the residuary and respondent son’s children. Two of those children, Annette Knopf and Stanley Gray were petitioners. Respondent and his wife, Karen, conveyed the land at issue in fee simple to respondent Polasek Farms, LLC, via multiple warranty deeds. Plaintiff sued respondents seeking a declaratory judgment that the deceased devised only a life estate to his respondent son, thus precluding him from delivering a greater interest to respondent Farms. Respondent Farms and the plaintiff filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted respondent’s Farms' motion in two separate rulings and rendered final judgment for the respondents, finding that the provision in question contained an invalid disabling restraint, the will vest the respondent with a fee-simple interest in the property, and the plaintiff received no remainder interest. A divided court of appeals affirmed, agreeing with the trial court's findings and concluding that the will's language regarding passing the land on down to the children was merely an instruction to the respondent son rather than a gift to the children. 

Issue:

Did the will unambiguously devise a fee-simple interest to respondent?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court disagree and reverse the appellate court’s judgment. The court held that in this case involving the construction of a will bequest of a tract of land, the testator intended to devise a life-estate interest to respondent son because the will as a whole indicated the testator's intent to keep her property in her family and to bequeath certain property to multiple generations. That, in reading all clauses of the will together, the testator granted the land to respondent subject to the limitations that he not sell it, that he take care of it, and that it be passed down to his children. Also, the Court ruled that the life tenant's interest in the property was limited by the general requirement that he preserve the remainder interest. Thus, the trial court and the court of appeals erred by holding that the will unambiguously devise a fee-simple interest under Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 5.001(a).