Nash v. Beckett
365 S.W.3d 131
Tex. App.2012Background
- Two separate 1957 wills created two trusts for C.M. Beckett, Jr. and Jerry B. Beckett, each providing for life income to the respective son and equal division of the residuary estate into two trusts.
- After the deaths of C.M., Sr. and Jo Beckett in 1962, the two brothers jointly administered the trusts; they later partitioned assets, with Jerry resigning as co-trustee of Jerry's trust and C.M., Jr. resigning as co-trustee of the other trust.
- Texie Nash (Texie) is the person who sought an equal, cross-trust distribution as independent executrix of C.M., Jr.’s trust after the trusts terminated in 2007; Beverly Beckett is Jerry’s surviving child and claimed Beverly alone owned Jerry’s trust assets.
- The trial court granted Beverly summary judgment that Beverly was entitled to 100% of Jerry’s trust, denying Texie’s and Clint, III’s counterparts any share.
- Texie and Beverly’s competing declaratory judgment actions were consolidated; Texie appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Beverly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two trusts’ corpus should be divided three ways among Beverly, Texie, and Clint, III, or whether each trust passes to the descendants of the respective son. | Texie: corpus divided equally among grandchildren and great-grandchildren. | Beverly: corpus passes to the descendants of the son in whose name the trust was created. | The trusts’ corpus must be divided equally among grandchildren/great-grandchildren; Texie prevailed. |
| Whether Beverly raised material fact issues on her affirmative defenses to defeat Texie’s summary judgment motion. | Texie: no genuine fact issues on Beverly’s defenses. | Beverly: defenses create fact issues precluding summary judgment. | No material fact issues found for Beverly on affirmative defenses; Texie entitled to summary judgment on defenses not proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- San Antonio Area Found. v. Lang, 35 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. 2000) (interpretation of wills; focus on testator's intent within four corners of will)
- Hines v. Hines, 137 S.W.3d 903 (Tex. 2003) (ambiguous will interpretation; extrinsic evidence may be used when ambiguity exists)
- Odeneal v. Van Horn, 678 S.W.2d 941 (Tex. 1984) (interpretation of testamentary intent; extrinsic evidence only when ambiguity exists)
- Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1983) (will construction; words give definite meaning if unambiguous)
- Doggett v. Robinson, 345 S.W.3d 94 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (will construction; ambiguity requires extrinsic evidence)
- Steger v. Muenster Drilling Co., 134 S.W.3d 359 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003) (ambiguous will; multiple reasonable meanings require extrinsic evidence)