Court Opinion

ID: 9654774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:50:37.563374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:13.364785
License: Public Domain

GREEN, Chief justice
(concurring).
I agree with my brother justices that the trial court was in position on motion for summary judgment to construe the disposi-tive provisions of the will and render summary judgment stating the interests of the parties in and to the bequeathed property. I agree that such declaratory judgment should have been rendered. Art. 2524-1, V.A.T.S. This Court has before it sufficient established facts to render such judgment. Guilliams v. Koonsman, 154 Tex. 401, 279 S.W.2d 579 (quoted in Justice Sharpe’s opinion).
As I construe the original opinion of my colleague Justice Nye and the concurring opinion of my colleague Justice Sharpe, they agree substantially on the declaratory judgment that should be entered construing the dispositive paragraphs of the will. I concur with them that we should reverse the judgment of the trial court in so far as it fails to render declaratory judgment construing such provisions of the will, and that we should render judgment that:
(1) All personal property of the deceased passed to appellee (Par. V of the will.)
(2) An undivided one-half interest in fee simple to the specific real estate described in Paragraphs VI and VII passed to appellee Henry Vivian Smith at the time of testator’s death, and the fee simple title to the other undivided one-half of such real property passed to appellee on the death of the life tenant A. T. Barefield.
(3) The remaining real property (if any) of the testator (not including that specifically described in Pars. VI and VII) was devised by the residuary clause (Par. VIII) in undivided interests as follows: Henry Vivian Smith (appellee) one-half; appellant Vivian Felver, one-fourth; and appellant Minda Holloway (Holliday), one-fourth.