Lexplug logoLexplug

State v. Estate of Loomis

Court of Appeals of Texas
553 S.W.2d 166, 1977 Tex. App. LEXIS 2990 (1977)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under the Texas Probate Code, when an intestate decedent leaves surviving heirs in one moiety (paternal or maternal) but no surviving heirs in the other, the entire estate passes to the surviving line rather than the vacant moiety escheating to the State.


Facts:

  • Mrs. J. A. Loomis died intestate (without a will) leaving a tangible estate of approximately $25,000 in cash.
  • The decedent was not survived by a husband, children, parents, or siblings.
  • All of the decedent's paternal grandparents and their descendants had predeceased her, leaving no heirs on the paternal side.
  • The decedent's maternal grandparents were deceased but left thirty-one surviving descendants.

Procedural Posture:

  • The administrator of the estate filed an application to declare heirship in the trial court.
  • The State of Texas intervened in the action, claiming the paternal half of the estate should escheat to the State.
  • The trial court conducted a non-jury trial regarding the distribution of the estate.
  • The trial court entered judgment awarding the entire estate to the thirty-one maternal heirs.
  • The State of Texas appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals.

Locked

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 the paternal moiety of an intestate estate escheat to the State when there are no surviving paternal heirs, or does it pass to the surviving maternal heirs under the Texas Probate Code?


Opinions:

Majority - Moore

No, the paternal moiety does not escheat; it passes to the surviving maternal heirs. Justice Moore reasoned that while Section 38(a)(4) of the Probate Code directs the estate to be divided into two moieties, the overarching legislative intent is to pass the decedent's estate in its entirety to their heirs. The court observed that the specific escheat statute (Article 3272) applies only when a person dies 'having no heirs,' which was not the case here as maternal heirs existed. To avoid a 'casus omissus' (a case omitted from the statute) and to effectuate the orderly distribution of property, the court construed the statute to allow the failed paternal moiety to cross over and descend to the maternal line.



Analysis:

This case resolves a statutory ambiguity in the Texas Probate Code regarding the distribution of estates when one ancestral line is extinct. By prioritizing the rights of surviving relatives over the State's right to escheat, the court reinforced the strong legal presumption against escheat. The decision establishes that the division of an estate into paternal and maternal 'moieties' is a method of calculation, not a rigid barrier preventing inheritance across lines when one side defaults. This ensures that if any blood relatives exist within the statutory limits, the State cannot seize the property.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Estate of Loomis (1977)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"