Heather Martin and John Brown v. Leonora Brown
03-15-00492-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 2, 2015Background
- Decedent Franklin A. Brown executed a 2002 will leaving his San Saba real property "unto my wife for and during her natural life or until such time as she shall fail to occupy the same," with the property to vest in his children if she predeceases him or ceases to occupy the property.
- At time of death (2013) Brown’s wife, Leonora (Appellee), lived in Copperas Cove since 2004 and claimed that home as her homestead; she had not lived on the San Saba property since earlier and had leased the San Saba property to a tenant in 2015.
- Appellants (Brown’s two children) sought a declaratory judgment that the wife failed to meet the Will’s occupancy condition and that the San Saba property therefore vested in them in fee simple.
- The trial court ruled for the wife, granting her an indefeasible life estate and concluding the life estate would remain unless she abandoned the property; it cited Singleton v. Donalson.
- Appellants appeal, arguing the Will is unambiguous, that "occupy" requires actual residence/possession, that the trial court improperly considered extrinsic evidence and inserted an "abandonment" requirement, and that Singleton is distinguishable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellants) | Defendant's Argument (Appellee) | Held (Trial Court) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Will is ambiguous so extrinsic evidence may be used to determine intent | Will is unambiguous; court must enforce plain text; no extrinsic evidence permitted | (Implicit) trial court relied on extrinsic facts to interpret intent | Trial court treated provision as creating an indefeasible life estate and considered extrinsic evidence |
| Meaning of "occupy" as a condition to the life estate | "Occupy" means actual residence or physical possession; wife does not occupy San Saba property | (Implicit) wife’s continued nonresidence did not defeat her life estate; occupancy requirement not applied to defeat estate | Trial court did not find the occupancy requirement defeated wife’s life estate |
| Whether a defeasible life estate subject to an executory limitation was created | The language creates a defeasible life estate; upon ceasing to occupy property, fee passes to children | Wife contends (implicitly) she retains life estate despite non-occupation | Trial court granted wife an indefeasible life estate (contrary to appellants’ reading) |
| Whether the trial court could add an "abandonment" requirement | Adding abandonment inserts a new condition not in the Will; error to require abandonment | Trial court concluded life estate would remain unless wife abandoned the property | Trial court imposed an abandonment requirement as a condition to defeat the life estate |
Key Cases Cited
- San Antonio Area Foundation v. Lang, 35 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. 2000) (unambiguous wills are construed from their text and extrinsic evidence is not admitted to vary plain language)
- Singleton v. Donalson, 117 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003) (will construing that enforced broad life-estate terms as testator wrote them)
- Lehman v. Corpus Christi Nat’l Bank, 668 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. 1984) (courts should not consider extrinsic evidence to alter unambiguous testamentary provisions)
- Spiegel v. KLRU Endowment Fund, 228 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007) (same principle: enforce clear will language)