David Fowler Johnson, of Winstead PC, has made available for download his article, “Court Affirmed Trial Court’s Reformation Of A Will To Omit The Word “Personal” From The Term “Property” In A Residuary Clause,” published in JDSUPRA. The article begins as follows:
In Odom v. Coleman, a brother and a sister sued each other regarding their father’s estate. No. 01-19-00669-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 9551 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] December 8, 2020, no pet.). The dispute centered on whether the father’s will should be reformed pursuant to Texas Estates Code Section 255.451(a)(3) that permits a court to modify or reform a will if “necessary to correct a scrivener’s error in the terms of the will, even if unambiguous, to conform with the testator’s intent,” which must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Id. The will contained a residuary clause that devised “personal property” to the son and then to the daughter. A strict reading of the will meant that the decedent’s real property would not be included in the residuary clause and would pass by intestancy. The son sued to reform the will to omit the word “personal” in the residuary clause. The trial court ruled for the son and the daughter appealed.
To view the full article, click here: “Court Affirmed Trial Court’s Reformation Of A Will To Omit The Word “Personal” From The Term “Property” In A Residuary Clause”
Posted by Elise Kim, Managing Associate Editor, Wealth Strategies Journal.