Court Opinion

ID: 9769292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:43:41.035391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:59.930688
License: Public Domain

SHANNON, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
The court in its charge defined mental capacity as “ . . . the ability of the person involved to appreciate the effect of what he or she was doing, to understand the nature and consequences of his or her acts and the business he or she was transacting.” The definition is supported by Texas authority. Gray v. Allen, 243 S.W 684 (Tex.Civ.App.1922, writ dism’d); Cole v. Waite, 151 Tex. 175, 246 S.W.2d 849, affirming, 242 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.Civ.App.1952).
Appellant insists that the phrase, “ . . . and to exercise her will in relation thereto,” should have been included in the court’s definition. As stated by the majority opinion, “ . . .no authority is found in case law of this state for adding to the definition of mental capacity, already established in our jurisprudence, the additional element that a grantor in making a conveyance must have the ability at the time to exercise his or her will in relation to the act.”
I would affirm the judgment.