Court Opinion

ID: 9669125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:40:02.208903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:52.663083
License: Public Domain

MIRABAL, Justice,
dissenting
I dissent.
The question before us is whether the involved instrument is a will, as a matter of law. We are not concerned with construction of the instrument, but solely with whether it is a will. In my opinion, the reasoning and holding of the Texas Supreme Court in Hinson v. Hinson, 154 Tex. 561, 280 S.W.2d 731, 733 (1955), is dispositive of the issue in this case.
An instrument is not a will unless it is executed with testamentary intent. Hinson, 280 S.W.2d at 733. The existence of testamentary intent does not depend on the maker’s designation of the instrument as a will, but upon the maker’s present intention, by that specific instrument, to create a disposition of his property to take effect after his death. Id. It is essential that the maker shall have intended to express his testamentary wishes in the particular instrument offered for probate. Id.
The statement “Everything is yours Darling” (or, as in the present case, “I leave everything to Verneice Daniels”), in an. instrument properly executed and intended as a will, might be effectual to pass the decedent’s property. Hinson, 280 S.W.2d at 734. However, we are not permitted to lift such statement out of context, but must consider the same in the light of all the provisions of the present instrument. Id. The additional statement in the instrument, “Note: Handle *14pursuant to the incomplete will that Dons has,” may indicate that the deceased intended that his property should pass and vest in accordance with the provisions of another document.
Did the “incomplete will” provide for ap-pellee to receive a life estate only, or did it establish a trust for the benefit of appellee? We do not know, because it is not in the summary judgment record. If, as in the Hinson case, the “incomplete will” provided for the wife to receive only a life estate with power of sale, then it would not be reasonable to believe that the later holographic statement, “Everything is yours Darling” (or “I leave everything to you”), was intended to operate as a devise of the property in fee simple.
Where the evidence is not conclusive of the existence or nonexistence of a testamentary intent, its existence or nonexistence is to be deduced from all the facts and circumstances of the case and the issue must be determined by the jury. Hinson, 280 S.W.2d at 735. Although, in the present ease, the summary judgment record does not contain the incomplete will, we do have in the record the affidavit of Charles Daniels, one of the decedent’s brothers, which says in part:
In fact, a week after Bill was killed, Ver-neice showed me a copy of Bill’s will. It was unsigned, and Bill had made a lot of corrections on the draft I saw. I recognized the scribbling as Bill’s handwriting. I noticed, also, that Bill had left Theron1 $20,000.00. I do not remember any other provision of the will, but I do remember it was a will and that Theron was included in the will. I remember, also, that it was unsigned and had not been notarized.
Additionally, the summary judgment evidence includes an affidavit from appellant, Gwendolyn Trim, the mother of Theron, saying that appellee called her the night Bill died and told her “Bill had made provisions for Theron and that she would make sure that Theron received the money his Father had left him.”
On this appeal, in deciding whether there is a material fact issue precluding the proper granting of summary judgment, we must take as true the evidence favorable to the nonmovant, who is appellant here. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex.1985). Every reasonable inference must be indulged in appellant’s favor, and any doubts resolved in her favor. Id.
If, in fact, the “incomplete will that Doris has” provides for other than fee simple title to all Bill’s property to vest in appellee on Bill’s death, then I would conclude, as a matter of law, that the probated instrument in question is not a will. I believe the reasoning in Hinson requires such a result.
In the present case, however, the affidavit of Charles Daniels, regarding his recollection of what the “incomplete will” said, does not conclusively establish the content of the document, and therefore, a material fact issue exists regarding “the incomplete will that Doris has.” Accordingly, I would sustain appellant’s first three points of error (asserting the trial court erred in granting appel-lee’s motion for summary judgment), and I would overrule appellant’s point of error four (asserting appellant herself was entitled to summary judgment declaring the holographic instrument is not a will).
I would reverse and remand the cause for trial.

. The summary judgment evidence is conflicting with regard to whether Theron was the son of Bill Daniels, the decedent. One of Bill’s brothers, his sister, and appellant each filed affidavits swearing Theron is Bill's son. However, Bill's other brother, appellee, Bill's secretary, and two long-time friends each swore Bill had no children at the time of his death.