Rogers v. Carter
1964 Tex. App. LEXIS 2466, 385 S.W.2d 563 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a testator disposes of property that was the subject of a specific devise in their will, that devise is adeemed (i.e., fails), even if the testator acquires a greater interest in other property that was also part of the same specific devise through a series of exchanges.
Facts:
- In 1949, Jim Rogers executed a will devising to his six children his specific undivided interests in six sections of land (Surveys 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14).
- At the time the will was made, Jim Rogers owned a one-half interest in Surveys 10, 12, and 14, and a one-third interest in Surveys 9, 11, and 13.
- The residuary clause of the will left all other property to his second wife, Belle Rogers.
- In 1950, Jim Rogers conveyed his interest in Surveys 10, 12, and 14 to his son Melvin in exchange for Melvin's one-third interest in Surveys 9, 11, and 13, with both parties also assuming certain debts.
- In 1957, Jim Rogers conveyed his interest in Survey 9 to his son Merlin in exchange for Merlin's one-third interest in Surveys 11 and 13, again with an assumption of debt.
- As a result of these exchanges, at the time of his death in 1959, Jim Rogers no longer owned any interest in Surveys 9, 10, 12, and 14, but he owned Surveys 11 and 13 in their entirety.
- Jim Rogers never changed his 1949 will after making these property exchanges.
Procedural Posture:
- Following Jim Rogers' death, a controversy arose over the construction of his will.
- A suit was filed in the trial court to construe the will.
- The trial court withdrew the case from the jury and entered a judgment.
- The trial court ruled that the devise to the children of interests in four sections of land was adeemed and that the after-acquired interests in the other two sections passed to the widow under the residuary clause.
- Jim Rogers' children (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
- The executors of Belle Rogers' estate served as the appellees.
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 testator's disposal of specifically devised property after a will's execution cause the devise to be adeemed, even if the disposal was part of a series of exchanges through which the testator acquired a greater interest in other property that was also part of the same specific devise?
Opinions:
Majority - Barrow, Justice
Yes, the testator's disposal of the specifically devised property causes the devise to be adeemed. The doctrine of ademption dictates that a specific legacy becomes inoperative if the subject matter is no longer part of the testator's estate at the time of death. The children argued that the land exchanges constituted a 'voluntary partition,' which is an exception to ademption. However, this exception only applies when a co-tenant's undivided interest is exchanged for a full interest in an equivalent specific parcel, leaving the testator with the same quantity and estate. Here, the transactions were complex conveyances spanning seven years, involved additional consideration (assumption of debt), and resulted in Jim Rogers owning less total land, so they do not qualify as a simple partition. The devise of interests in Surveys 9, 10, 12, and 14 was a specific devise, not a demonstrative one, and was therefore adeemed. The after-acquired two-thirds interests in Surveys 11 and 13 pass to Belle Rogers under the will's residuary clause.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict application of the doctrine of ademption for specific devises in Texas law. It clarifies that the 'voluntary partition' exception is narrow and will not apply to complex exchanges involving additional consideration or resulting in a change to the testator's total estate quantity. The decision serves as a critical reminder of the importance of updating testamentary instruments following significant changes in property ownership, as courts will not use extrinsic evidence of intent to rewrite the plain language of an unambiguous will to avoid ademption.
