In Re Estate of Lewis
1988 WL 36668, 1988 Tex. App. LEXIS 1226, 749 S.W.2d 927 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will that explicitly grants life estates to devisees, including powers of management and a duty to preserve the corpus, does not create a testamentary trust that would prohibit the closing of the estate. Legatees are entitled to have the estate closed and assets distributed unless there is a conclusively established need for continued administration.
Facts:
- Harry Lewis, Jr. died, leaving a will that appointed his two daughters, Harriet Lesikar and Jenny Lou Rappeport, as co-independent executrices.
- The will bequeathed to each daughter an undivided one-half interest in the residuary estate 'for her use and benefit during her natural life.'
- The will granted the daughters full power to manage the property, collect income, and sell or exchange the property.
- The will also required the daughters to 'preserve the corpus of the Estate so bequeathed to them for their lives ... and shall not invade such corpus.'
- The remainder interest in the corpus was devised to the daughters' children.
- In a separate provision of the same will, Mr. Lewis created an explicit testamentary trust for his grandchildren, appointing a bank as trustee.
Procedural Posture:
- Harriet Lesikar filed an action in the district court under the Texas Probate Code to compel an accounting, close the estate of her father, Harry Lewis, Jr., and distribute the assets.
- The co-executrix, Jenny Lou Rappeport, opposed the action.
- Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Rappeport, ruling that the estate could not be distributed until the deaths of both daughters and that administration needed to continue.
- Lesikar, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a will that grants daughters an undivided interest in the residuary estate 'for her use and benefit during her natural life,' with powers to manage the property but a duty to preserve the corpus, create a testamentary trust that prohibits closing the estate and distributing the assets to them as life tenants?
Opinions:
Majority - Cornelius, Chief Justice
No. The will's residuary devise created two life estates, not a testamentary trust. The will's plain language repeatedly uses terms descriptive of life estates, such as 'for her use and benefit during her natural life' and 'life Estates.' The powers granted to the daughters to manage, control, and sell the property, along with the duty to preserve the corpus for the remaindermen, are standard features of a life tenancy and do not indicate an intent to create a trust. The fact that the testator explicitly created a trust for his grandchildren elsewhere in the will demonstrates he knew how to create a trust and intentionally chose not to do so for his daughters. Furthermore, even if it were a trust, this would not be a legal impediment to closing the estate and distributing the assets to the trustees.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that courts will prioritize the plain language of a will when determining the testator's intent. It clarifies that granting traditional powers and duties to a life tenant does not, by itself, transform a life estate into a more complex testamentary trust. The ruling supports the public policy of timely estate administration, preventing executors from indefinitely withholding property from devisees without a clear and proven need for continued administration. This precedent guides future cases in distinguishing between these two types of property interests, ensuring that the specific legal terms used by a testator are given their proper weight.
