Court Opinion

ID: 9411877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 09:10:22.47179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:16.430637
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                              TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                      No. 10-21-00297-CV

LEWIS WRIGHT,
                                                                      Appellant
v.

JEAN JONES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND
DOROTHY SHARKEY, AS NEXT FRIEND
AND AGENT OF JEAN MARIE WRIGHT,
                                                                      Appellees

                                From the 13th District Court
                                  Navarro County, Texas
                               Trial Court No. D19-28471-CV

                                             OPINION

      In two issues, appellant, Lewis Wright, complains about a judgment rendered in

favor of appellees, Jean Jones, individually, and Dorothy Sharkey, as next friend and

agent of Jean Marie Wright, involving property located in Navarro County, Texas.1

      1   Jean Wright is the mother of Jean Jones and the step-mother of Dorothy Sharkey.
Specifically, Lewis contends that the trial court erred by denying him a one-half interest

in and the right to possess and use the property located in Navarro County, which

Lewis’s father, Billy Wright, conveyed to him. We reverse and render, in part, and

reverse and remand, in part.

                                        Background

        On January 23, 2015, Billy and Jean Wright, Lewis’s stepmother, jointly executed a

General Warranty With Enhanced Life Estate (Lady Bird Deed). The Lady Bird Deed

conveyed to Lewis the family home and ten acres located in Navarro County, subject to

the following reservation:

        For Grantor and Grantor’s assign, a reservation of a life estate without any
        liability for waste, with full power and authority to sell, convey, mortgage,
        lease, and otherwise dispose of the Property in fee simple, with or without
        consideration, without joinder by the remaindermen and to retain
        absolutely any and all proceeds derived therefrom. Grantor shall also have
        full power and authority to revoke, amend, divest, replace, change or
        otherwise alter the designation of remaindermen without joinder by the
        remaindermen.

Billy and Jean Wright were identified as the grantors, and they both signed the deed. The

deed identified Lewis as the sole grantee.

        On March 1, 2015, Billy passed away. Following his death, the family sought to

probate his will. Both Billy and Jean Wright executed reciprocal wills that left their entire

estate to the surviving spouse.

        On May 12, 2016, Jean Wright signed a durable power of attorney appointing

Dorothy as her “agent (attorney-in-fact)” to act on Jean Wright’s behalf regarding real
Wright v. Jones, et al.                                                                 Page 2
property transactions and estate, trust, and other beneficiary transactions, among other

things.

        On August 13, 2018, Dorothy, as Jean Wright’s attorney-in-fact, executed a

revocation of the Lady Bird Deed. Both Dorothy and Jean Wright signed the revocation

document. On March 5, 2020, Dorothy, as Jean Wright’s attorney-in-fact, signed an

additional revocation of the Lady Bird Deed. Both the August 13, 2018 and the March 5,

2020 revocations identified Lewis as the sole beneficiary or grantee and sought to “cancel

and revoke any and all interests of Grantee in the Property, including all present, future,

remainder, and contingent interests.”

        Thereafter, Jean Jones filed suit against Lewis, asserting a trespass claim and

requesting injunctive relief. In her original petition, Jean Jones alleged the following:

        Since October 1, 2018, Plaintiff [Jean Jones] has resided at her mother’s
        house at 15421 Highway 31 East, Kerens, Texas 75144. On October 9, 2019,
        Plaintiff returned to her place of residence at 15421 Highway 31 East,
        Kerens, Texas 75144 after visiting friends and family out of town for a few
        days. When Plaintiff arrived at her home, the gate to the entrance of the
        property was locked, so she had to climb over the gate to enter the property.
        When Plaintiff tried to enter the home, her key no longer fit in the locks on
        the doors of the house. Plaintiff attempted to contact her brother, Lewis
        Wright, who lives at their mother’s home with her, but he failed to answer
        the phone. When Plaintiff eventually got into contact with her brother,
        Defendant, Lewis Wright, he informed Plaintiff that she would no longer
        be allowed to live there and she could only gather her belongings and leave.
        He had changed the locks on the door. Since that time, Defendant has
        refused to allow plaintiff to enter her residence.

In an affidavit attached to her original petition, Jean Jones indicated that Jean Wright now

resides in a nursing home in Ennis, Texas.
Wright v. Jones, et al.                                                                 Page 3
        Lewis filed an original answer generally denying the allegations made by Jean

Jones. Thereafter, Jean Jones filed a supplemental petition adding Dorothy, as next friend

and agent of Jean Marie Wright, as a plaintiff. In their supplemental petition, Jean Jones

and Dorothy reasserted the trespass cause of action and request for injunctive relief and

also requested declarations that the August 13, 2018 and March 5, 2020 revocations were

effective; that Lewis “has no present, future, or remainder interest in the property”; that

Jean Wright owns the entire property in fee simple; that no interest in the property passed

on the death of Billy; that Jean Wright has the sole present right of possession of the

property; and that Jean Wright has the exclusive right to grant permission to others to

enter the property.       Lewis filed a counterpetition requesting declarations that “the

interest in the real property described in the attached deed vested in Lewis Allen Wright

on March 1, 2015[,] upon the passing of Billy J. Wright; and . . . That Lewis Allen Wright

owns said property in fee simple.”

        After a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Jean Jones and

Dorothy on their trespass claim and awarded $6,319.92 in damages. The trial court also

granted a declaratory judgment in favor of Jean Jones and Dorothy as follows:

        •    “The Revocation of General Warranty Deed with Enhanced Life Estate (Lady
             Bird Deed) admitted into evidence as Exhibit P-3 in this cause was effective.”

        •    “Jean M. Wright owns the property made the subject of this litigation and
             described in Exhibit P-1, admitted in this cause, in fee simple.”

Wright v. Jones, et al.                                                              Page 4
        •    “Jean M. Wright has the sole present right of possession of the property made
             the subject of this litigation and described in Exhibit P-1, admitted into
             evidence in this cause.”

        •    “Jean M. Wright has the exclusive right to grant permission to others to enter
             the property the property [sic] made the subject of this litigation and described
             in Exhibit P-1, admitted into evidence in this cause.”

Lewis filed a motion for new trial, and a request for findings of fact and conclusions of

law. Lewis’s motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law, and the trial court

did not make any findings of fact and conclusions of law. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(c). This

appeal followed.

                                     The Lady Bird Deed

        In two issues, which we will consider together, Lewis contends that the trial court

erred by concluding that he does not have a one-half ownership interest in the property

based on the Lady Bird Deed and by concluding that he does not have the right to possess

and use the property.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

        The purpose of a declaratory-judgment action is to establish the existing rights,

status, or other legal relationships between the parties. City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284

S.W.3d 366, 370 (Tex. 2009); see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 37.009(b). Suits for

declaratory judgment are intended to determine the rights of parties when a controversy

has arisen, but before any wrong has been committed. See Armstrong v. Hixon, 206 S.W.3d

Wright v. Jones, et al.                                                                 Page 5
175, 179 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet. denied); see also Montemayor v. City of San

Antonio Fire Dep’t, 985 S.W.2d 549, 551 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied).

        Declaratory judgments are reviewed under the same standards as other judgments

and decrees. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 37.010; Hawkins v. El Paso First Health

Plans, Inc., 214 S.W.3d 709, 719 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, pet. denied). We look to the

procedure used to resolve the issue at trial to determine the standard of review on appeal.

See Hawkins, 214 S.W.3d at 719; Armstrong, 206 S.W.3d at 179; see also City of Galveston v.

Tex. Gen. Land Office, 196 S.W.3d 218, 221 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet.

denied). Here, the trial court determined the declaratory-judgment issues after a bench

trial; thus, we apply a sufficiency of the evidence review to the trial court’s factual

findings and review its conclusions of law de novo. See Montfort v. Trek Res., Inc., 198

S.W.3d 344, 354 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2006, no pet.) (citing Black v. City of Killeen, 78

S.W.3d 686, 691 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. denied)).

        When no findings of fact are filed, as in this case, the reviewing court implies all

necessary findings to support the judgment. Tarrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829,

842 (Tex. 2000). Implied findings of fact, like the trial court’s findings, may be challenged

for legal and factual sufficiency. McCord v. Goode, 308 S.W.3d 409, 412-13 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2010, no pet.). The standard of review is the same as that applied to a jury’s

findings and a trial court’s findings of fact. Affordable Power, L.P. v. Buckeye Ventures, Inc.,

347 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.). However, where no findings of

Wright v. Jones, et al.                                                                  Page 6
fact were entered, the trial court’s judgment will be affirmed if it can be upheld upon any

basis that has support in the record under any theory of law applicable to the case. Id. at

829-30.

        When the challenging party, Lewis here, did not have the burden of proof at trial,

the party challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence, again Lewis, must

demonstrate on appeal that there is no evidence to support the trial court’s adverse

findings. Croucher v. Croucher, 660 S.W.2d 55, 58 (Tex. 1983). Under the no-evidence

standard of review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s

findings, “credit[ing] favorable evidence if reasonable [fact finders] could, and

disregard[ing] contrary evidence unless reasonable [fact finders] could not.” City of Keller

v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005). We must indulge every reasonable inference

that would support the trial court’s findings. Id. at 822. “The final test for legal sufficiency

must always be whether the evidence at trial would enable reasonable and fair-minded

people to reach the decision under review.” Id. at 827.

        For his factual-sufficiency challenge, Lewis must demonstrate there is insufficient

evidence to support the adverse finding. Pulley v. Milberger, 198 S.W.3d 418, 426 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied).         In reviewing a factual-sufficiency challenge, we

consider and weight all of the evidence in support of and contrary to the trial court’s

finding and will set aside the finding only if the evidence supporting the finding is so

slight, or the evidence against it so strong, that the finding is clearly wrong and unjust.

Wright v. Jones, et al.                                                                  Page 7
See Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam). The amount of evidence

necessary to affirm a judgment is far less than that necessary to reverse a judgment. See

Pulley, 198 S.W.3d at 427.

        In a bench trial, the trial court, as the factfinder, is the sole judge of the credibility

of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722

S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. 1986); see City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 819. The trial court may take

into consideration all the facts and surrounding circumstances in connection with the

testimony of each witness and accept or reject all or any part of that testimony. See

Weisfeld v. Tex. Land Fin. Co., 162 S.W.3d 379, 380-81 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.).

APPLICABLE LAW

        The resolution of these issues necessarily requires us to interpret the language of

the Lady Bird Deed.2 In construing a written agreement, we must ascertain and give

effect to the parties' intentions as expressed in the agreement. Frost Nat'l Bank v. L&F

Distribs., Ltd., 165 S.W.3d 310, 311-12 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam); Carbona v. CH Med., Inc.,

266 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.); see Terrill v. Tuckness, 985 S.W.2d

97, 101 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (noting that the rules of contract

construction apply to the construction of deeds). We discern intent from the agreement

itself, and the agreement must be enforced as written. Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc., 246

        2Subsequent to oral argument, we requested amicus curiae briefs from several learned sources on
Lady Bird Deeds. To date, we have not received any amici briefs in response to our request.

Wright v. Jones, et al.                                                                         Page 8
S.W.3d 842, 846 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.); see French v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 896

S.W.2d 795, 797 (Tex. 1995) (“Because ‘once a dispute arises over meaning, it can hardly

be expected that the parties will agree on what meaning was intended,’ courts use canons

of construction to help ascertain the parties' intent.” (quoting Southland Royalty Co. v. Pan

Am. Petroleum Corp., 378 S.W.2d 50, 59 (Tex. 1964) (Calvert, C.J., concurring))). We

consider the entire writing and attempt to harmonize and give effect to all the provisions

of the contract by analyzing the provisions with reference to the whole agreement. Frost

Nat'l Bank, 165 S.W.3d at 312. This consideration comes “‘from a utilitarian standpoint

bearing in mind the particular business activity sought to be served,’” and we will “‘avoid

when possible and proper a construction which is unreasonable, inequitable, and

oppressive.’” Id. (quoting Reilly v. Rangers Mgmt., Inc., 727 S.W.2d 527, 530 (Tex. 1987)).

And, “[i]t is a rule of construction of deeds that they are to be most strongly construed

against the grantor and in favor of the grantee, and this rule applies to reservations and

exceptions.” Commerce Trust Co. v. Lyon, 284 S.W.2d 920, 921 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth

1955, no writ).

Wright v. Jones, et al.                                                                Page 9
DISCUSSION

        Here, the Lady Bird Deed provided that “Billy J. Wright, also known as Billy Joe

Wright, joined herein by his spouse, Jean M. Wright” were joint grantors.3 Lewis was

named as the grantee. The deed describes the grant as follows:

        Grantor, for the Consideration and subject to the Reservations from
        Conveyance and the Exceptions to Conveyance and Warranty, grants, sells,
        and conveys to Grantee the Property; together with all and singular the
        rights and appurtenances thereto in any way belonging, to have and to hold
        it to Grantee and Grantee’s heirs, successors, and assigns forever.

The deed also contained the following reservation from the grant:

        For Grantor and Grantor’s assign, a reservation of a life estate without any
        liability for waste, with full power and authority to sell, convey, mortgage,
        lease, and otherwise dispose of the Property in fee simple, with or without
        consideration, without joinder by the remaindermen and to retain
        absolutely any and all proceeds derived therefrom. Grantor shall also have
        full power and authority to revoke, amend, divest, replace, change or
        otherwise alter the designation of remaindermen without joinder by the
        remaindermen.

        The reservation clause of the Lady Bird Deed unambiguously created life estates

for both Billy and Jean, as joint grantors. Ordinarily, when a life estate is measured by

two or more persons, the life estate ceases upon the death of the last party. Neely v.

Brogdon, 214 S.W. 614, 615-16 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1919) (“A life estate is one which

may last during the life or lives of one or more persons in being. . . . A testator may create

        3 Although the Lady Bird Deed uses the term “Grantor” to describe Billy and Jean, the Lady Bird
Deed specifically states that Jean joins Billy as grantor and that “[w]hen the context requires, singular nouns
and pronouns include the plural.” Thus, it appears that Billy and Jean were joint grantors of the property
in question.

Wright v. Jones, et al.                                                                               Page 10
successive life estates in the same property, as where he gives to a named beneficiary for

life, and then to another for life, and so on to any number of persons, provided that are

persons in being at the time the will take effect, each such estate to begin upon the

termination of a preceding life estate.”), aff’d, 239 S.W. 192 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1922); see

Gutierrez v. Stewart Title Co., 550 S.W.3d 304, 315 n.8 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2019, no pet.); see also Estate of McWhorter v. Wooten, 593 S.W.2d 366, 370 (Tex. Civ. App.—

Waco 1979) (noting that, in the context of limitations, a life estate terminates on the death

of the “last grantor”), aff’d, 622 S.W.2d 844 (Tex. 1981).

        However, we must be mindful of the fact that the Lady Bird Deed did not

expressly create successive life estates that began upon the termination of a preceding life

estate. Moreover, we recognize that Billy and Jean were married, and property owned

by a married person is presumed to be community property. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §

3.003(a).    Each spouse owns a one-half undivided interest in community property.

Farmers Tex. County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Okelberry, 525 S.W.3d 786, 794 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (citing In re Worth, 100 B.R. 834, 840 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1989)

(“Under Texas community property law, [community] property is considered as owned

during the marriage one-half by the husband and one-half by the wife.”); Carnes v.

Meador, 533 S.W.2d 365, 371 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (“[E]ach

spouse owns a one-half interest in all community funds regardless of which spouse has

management and control.”)). As such, one spouse can dispose only of that spouse’s one-

Wright v. Jones, et al.                                                                Page 11
half interest in community property. See Haile v. Holtzclaw, 414 S.W.2d 916, 922 (Tex.

1967) (“Another principle pertinent to the case now before us and deeply embedded in

the law is the presumption that a testator only intended to dispose of that which was his.

This presumption may only be overcome by language which clearly and without

equivocation manifests a contrary intent.”); Avery v. Johnson, 108 Tex. 294, 304-05, 192

S.W. 542, 545 (1917).

        Reconciling Texas community-property law with the language of the Lady Bird

Deed in this case yields a conclusion that Billy and Jean each reserved a life estate in their

respective one-half interest in the property. And most importantly, there is no language

in the Deed stating that upon the death of either Billy or Jean Wright, the deceased

spouse’s one-half interest would be conveyed to the surviving spouse for the remainder

of their life. See Terrell v. Graham, 576 S.W.2d 610, 612 (Tex. 1979) (noting that where

brothers each owned an undivided one-half interest in a parcel of land and each executed

a deed stating that the other would take on the granting brother’s death, the surviving

brother became the fee owner of the entire parcel upon the decedent brother’s death

because that was the intent reflected by the language of the deeds); see also Haile, 414

S.W.2d at 922 (noting the presumption that a testator only intends to dispose of that

which is his and that the presumption may only be overcome with language that “clearly

and without equivocation manifests a contrary intent”). Instead, Billy’s one-half interest

vested in Lewis immediately when Billy died. See Lacey v. Floyd, 87 S.W. 665, 667 (1905)

Wright v. Jones, et al.                                                                Page 12
(“[F]or every life estate must in regular course terminate at the death of the life tenant,

and the persons designated to take the remainder must take ‘at his death’ . . . .”); Crist v.

Morgan, 245 S.W. 659, 661 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1922) (same); see also Cleaver v. Knighton,

127 S.W.2d 958, 962 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1939, no writ) (noting that a life tenant

who is still living, who through her deed purports to convey a fee simple estate, conveys

only her life estate and that the right of possession of the remaindermen does not vest

until her death); Davis v. Zeanon, 111 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1937, writ

ref’d) (“At common law, an estate in remainder, expectant on the death of the grantor,

could not be created, but in this case, by virtue of a special statutory provision, an estate

in land may be created by deed to commence in the future. The grantor’s death may be

designated as the time when the estate is to fall into possession. Upon such death, a

complete title, in the sense of a right to present enjoyment of the estate, becomes vested

in the grantee, unless the right to make other disposition of the property has been

reserved by the grantor.” (citations omitted)).

        Therefore, because the Deed did not include language conveying Billy’s one-half

interest to Jean Wright upon his death and resulted in title vesting in Lewis immediately

upon Billy’s death, neither revocation of the Lady Bird Deed executed by Dorothy, as

Wright v. Jones, et al.                                                               Page 13
Jean Wright’s attorney-in-fact, was effective as to Billy’s one-half interest that vested in

Lewis.4

        Despite the foregoing, Jean Jones and Dorothy rely on Billy and Jean Wright’s

reciprocal wills to confirm their intent to leave everything to the other upon their death.

We note that extrinsic evidence of intent is admissible only if the deed is ambiguous on

its face. See Friendswood Dev. Co. v. McDade & Co., 926 S.W.2d 280, 283 (Tex. 1996); see also

CenterPoint Energy Houston Elec., L.L.P. v. Old TJC Co., 177 S.W.3d 425, 431 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (“A court may consider the parties' interpretations

of the contract through extrinsic or parol evidence only after a contract is first determined

to be ambiguous.”). A mere disagreement about the proper interpretation of a deed,

however, does not make the deed ambiguous; the instrument is ambiguous only if, after

application of the rules of construction, the deed is reasonably susceptible to more than

one meaning. Brown v. Havard, 593 S.W.2d 939, 942 (Tex. 1980); Universal C.I.T. Credit

Corp. v. Daniel, 150 Tex. 513, 243 S.W.2d 154, 157 (1951). We do not find the language in

the Lady Bird Deed in this case to be ambiguous, and as such, we may not consider the

        4We note that there is not much Texas case law interpreting Lady Bird Deeds. However, at least
one commentator has observed that “[m]any use ‘Lady Bird’ and ‘transfer on death’ to refer to the same
thing.” See Lucy Wood, Transfer on Death Deeds in Texas: High Time for the TODD, 9 TEX. TECH EST. PLAN
COM. PROP. L.J. 59, 71 (2016). Although there are some distinct differences between non-statutory Lady
Bird Deeds and statutory Transfer on Death Deeds (“TODDs”), both are designed to transfer property on
death without probate. And interestingly, section 114.057 of the Texas Estates Code, which pertains to
TODDs, specifically provides that: “If a transfer on death deed is made by more than one transferor,
revocation by the transferor does not affect the deed as to the interest of another transferor who does not
make that revocation.” TEX. ESTATES CODE. ANN. § 114.057(d). Additionally, the Texas Estates Code states
that: “A transfer on death deed made by joint owners with right of survivorship is revoked only if it is
revoked by all of the living joint owners.” Id. § 114.057(e).

Wright v. Jones, et al.                                                                            Page 14
parties’ reciprocal wills to ascertain the intent of the parties in this Deed. See, e.g., TEXAS

ESTATE PLANNING § 5.113 (noting that for property subject to a Lady Bird Deed, “the client

must remember that the disposition of his home is no longer governed by his will, and

any change of beneficiary must be done through a new deed”).                And even if we

considered the wills, Billy’s one-half interest would have already vested in Lewis and,

thus, would not have been considered a part of Billy’s estate at the time the will was

probated.

        Based on the foregoing, we conclude that title to Billy’s one-half interest in the

property vested in Lewis immediately upon Billy’s death. This means that Lewis and

Jean Wright’s successors-in-interest are cotenants in the property at issue. See Laster v.

First Huntsville Props. Co., 826 S.W.2d 125, 129 (Tex. 1991) (“A cotenancy is formed when

two or more persons share the unity of exclusive use and possession in property held in

common.”).        Furthermore, Jean Wright and her successors-in-interest did not have

authority to revoke the Lady Bird Deed as to Billy’s interest that vested in Lewis. The

trial court erred by concluding otherwise. Therefore, applying the appropriate standards,

we conclude that the trial court’s declaratory judgment is not supported by legally and

factually sufficient evidence. See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 822, 827; Croucher, 660

S.W.2d at 58; see also Cain, 709 S.W.2d at 176.

        And because the finding of trespass damages is based on the trial court’s erroneous

determination that Lewis did not own a one-half undivided interest in the property,

Wright v. Jones, et al.                                                                 Page 15
sustaining the complaint in issue one necessarily requires that issue two, which

challenges the determination that Lewis did not have a right of immediate possession

and resulted in a finding of damages for trespass, must also be sustained. See Env’t

Processing Sys., L.C. v. FPL Farming Ltd., 457 S.W.3d 414, 419 (Tex. 2015) (noting that the

Texas Supreme Court “has consistently defined a trespass as encompassing three

elements: (1) entry (2) onto the property of another (3) without the property owner’s

consent or authorization.”); Barnes v. Mathis, 353 S.W.3d 760, 764 (Tex. 2011) (“Trespass

to real property is an unauthorized entry upon the land of another, and may occur when

one enters—or causes something to enter—another’s property.”); Todd v. Bruner, 365

S.W.2d 155, 160 (Tex. 1963) (per curiam) (“Any cotenant has a right to be in the possession

of property in which he owns an interest.”). Accordingly, we sustain Lewis’s issues on

appeal.

                                        Conclusion

        We reverse, in part, the judgment of the trial court and render judgment that Lewis

has a one-half interest in the property and that the revocations executed by Dorothy on

Jean Wright’s behalf were ineffective as to Lewis’s interest, which immediately vested in

Lewis upon Billy’s death. Furthermore, we reverse the portion of the trial court’s

judgment awarding trespass damages to Jean Jones, individually, and Dorothy Sharkey,

as next friend and agent of Jean Marie Wright, and remand for proceedings consistent

with this opinion.

Wright v. Jones, et al.                                                             Page 16
                                               STEVE SMITH
                                               Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson,
       and Justice Smith
Reverse and render, in part, and reverse and remand, in part
Opinion delivered and filed July 26, 2023
[CV06]

Wright v. Jones, et al.                                        Page 17