Heather Martin and John Brown v. Leonora Brown
03-15-00492-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 22, 2015Background
- Decedent Franklin Arthur Brown’s will granted his spouse a life estate in real property conditioned on two things: (1) she survives him and (2) she “occupy” the property. The word “occupy” appears twice in the will.
- The trial court awarded the spouse (Appellee Leonora Brown) an unconditional life estate; Appellants (Heather Martin and John Brown) appealed.
- Appellants argue the will’s occupancy condition is unambiguous and requires physical residence/possession, not mere ownership or use.
- Appellee asks the court to interpret “occupy” broadly (to include ownership or simple use) and to consider extrinsic evidence about the testator’s intent.
- Appellants contend extrinsic evidence was improperly considered because the will is unambiguous and Appellee’s role as independent executor is irrelevant to the dispositive question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the word “occupy” in the will is ambiguous | "Occupy" is unambiguous and means physical residence/possession | "Occupy" can be read broadly to include ownership or use | Court of appeals should find the word unambiguous (Appellants ask for reversal) |
| Whether extrinsic evidence may be used to interpret the will | No — if will is unambiguous, do not consult extrinsic evidence (citing Lang) | Yes — extrinsic evidence can illuminate testator’s circumstances and intent | Appellants contend extrinsic evidence was improper here; court should follow Lang and not consider it |
| Whether Appellee’s status as Independent Executor affects the occupancy condition | Executor status is irrelevant to the textual requirement | Executor status bears on administration but not on dispositive terms | Appellants say executor role does not alter the will’s terms |
| Proper remedy | Reverse trial court’s award of an unconditional life estate and enforce occupancy condition | Affirm trial court’s unconditional life estate | Appellants request reversal to impose occupancy condition on the life estate |
Key Cases Cited
- San Antonio Area Foundation v. Lang, 35 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. 2000) (if a will is unambiguous, courts should not consult extrinsic evidence to determine intent)
- Miller v. Wilson, 888 S.W.2d 158 (Tex. App. El Paso 1994) (extrinsic evidence used to clarify property ownership facts, not to rewrite unambiguous testamentary language)
- Turner v. Adams, 855 S.W.2d 735 (Tex. App. El Paso 1993) (discusses principles for determining testator intent)
- McGill v. Johnson, 799 S.W.2d 673 (Tex. 1990) (addresses will interpretation principles)