in the Estate of James A. Loftis, Jr., 07-14-00135-CV

Background

Jim and Rosemary executed a premarital agreement (PMA) before marrying in 2005; the PMA allocated separate property, management rights, and spelled out consequences for dissolution by divorce (Article 7) and by death (Article 8).
The Waxahachie residence was Jim’s separate property and is listed in the PMA; the PMA also required Jim, by will, to leave the home and automobile to Rosemary upon his death (Article 8) and contained waivers of elective-share rights.
In 2011 Jim conveyed the residence to a revocable trust for which Rosemary was initially trustee; in 2012 he amended the trust removing Rosemary and naming John as trustee.
Jim filed for divorce in May 2012; Rosemary filed a counterpetition in February 2013; Jim died February 4, 2013 while the divorce proceedings were pending.
John, as independent executor/trustee, sued to have Article 7 govern and to place the residence in the trust; Rosemary sought declaratory relief under Article 8 that she was entitled to the residence and car free of debt.
The trial court applied Article 8 and ordered John to convey title to Rosemary; appellate court affirmed most of that ruling but reversed as to ordering the trustee to transfer title as a matter of law and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (John)	Defendant's Argument (Rosemary)	Held
Whether Article 7 (divorce) or Article 8 (death) of the PMA governs when a spouse dies while divorce is pending	Filing a dissolution proceeding triggers Article 7 obligations, including releases of claims to separate property, so Article 7 controls once a petition is filed	Article 7 applies only if the marriage is dissolved by court order; because Jim died before a divorce decree, Article 8 governs	Held: Article 8 governs where marriage was dissolved by death before court-ordered divorce; John’s first issue overruled
Whether Jim’s 2011 deed conveying the residence to his revocable trust defeated Rosemary’s Article 8 entitlement	Section 2.8 permits a spouse to manage and convey separate property without regard to the other spouse’s interests, so the conveyance to the trust removed the home from PMA reach	Article 8 unambiguously requires Jim to provide the home to Rosemary at death; conveyance to a trust cannot unilaterally defeat that PMA promise without further legal challenge	Held: Court affirmed Article 8 controls as to rights, but reversed and remanded as to the summary judgment relief ordering the trustee (John) to deliver title because the record did not establish as a matter of law that the trust transfer could be set aside
Whether the PMA is ambiguous as to application of Articles 7 and 8	If Rosemary’s reading is reasonable, the PMA is ambiguous because John’s interpretation of Article 7 is also reasonable	Same; PMA ambiguous would preclude summary judgment	Held: Not ambiguous under the rules of contract construction; summary judgment on Article 8 was proper; John’s ambiguity claim overruled
Whether summary judgment could order the trustee to convey title to Rosemary	N/A (John argued the trust owns the property; he sought judgment that trustee must hold for children)	Rosemary sought declaratory and equitable relief against executor and trustee to obtain clear title per Article 8	Held: Trial court erred to the extent it ordered the trustee to convey as a matter of law; factual/claim-based challenges to the trust transfer remain for further proceedings

Key Cases Cited

Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (summary judgment evidence construed in favor of nonmovant)
Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 341 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. 2011) (contract interpretation focuses on parties’ intent and harmonizing the entire instrument)
J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. 2003) (no single contract provision controls; give effect to all provisions)