Interpreting a Will - The Primary Consideration

We often handle will contests, disputes regarding the validity of a will. But another very common form a dispute regarding a will isn’t over its validity, but instead its meaning. There can be disputes regarding the interpretation of a particular phrase contained in a will.

This often comes up in situations where a specific asset no longer exists. Or where a beneficiary has pre-deceased the testator. Or if there is a dispute regarding a beneficiary class or asset class. Sometimes, it is simply a matter of a drafting error.

These disputes are typically resolved via a declaratory judgment action. Often, the executor or administrator will file a declaratory judgment suit when faced with competing interpretations of a provision in a will. The competing parties will then urge the court to adopt their preferred interpretation.

Texas courts have developed a series of rules to apply to disputes over a will. The most important rule is that courts do their best to follow the intention of the testator. But this is where many people get confused, as they are eager to point to other documents or testimony to convince the court of the testator’s true intent. Documents or testimony outside of the will itself is what is called extrinsic evidence.

Courts do not first look at extrinsic evidence. Instead, the court looks to the words the testator actually uses to determine if they are capable of being understand with a clear meaning. If they are, the court should enforce that interpretation, even if one side argues there is no way that is what the testator “really meant.”

As the Texas Supreme Court has noted:

In construing a will, the court’s focus is on the testatrix’s intent. This intent must be ascertained from the language found within the four corners of the will. The court should focus not on “what the testatrix intended to write, but the meaning of the words she actually used.” In this light, courts must not redraft wills to vary or add provisions “under the guise of construction of the language of the will” to reach a presumed intent. Determining a testatrix’s intent from the four corners of a will requires a careful examination of the words used. If the will is unambiguous, a court should not go beyond specific terms in search of the testatrix’s intent.

Many times, a party will argue that a provision is ambiguous because they do not like the outcome of a plain meaning analysis and instead prefer to resort to extrinsic analysis. But Texas courts do not allow such intrinsic evidence unless the court finds that the language is truly too ambiguous to interpret clearly. Only then will a court refer to extrinsic evidence.

In summary, a Court’s priority is to fulfill the intent of the testator. But, whenever possible, a court looks to the words the testator actually uses and doesn’t try to supply the terms the testator should have used or what a party wishes the testator had used.

If you are involved in a dispute regarding the meaning or interpretation of a will, call Texas lawyers experienced in handling estate disputes.