Hurt v. Smith
| Decision Date | 10 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. C-5747,C-5747 |
| Citation | 744 S.W.2d 1 |
| Parties | James R. HURT, Independent Executor of the Estate of Huling W. Smith, Deceased et al., Petitioners, v. Calvin SMITH and Carol June Smith Brown et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
This is a will construction case involving a determination of the sequence by which legacies should be charged with taxes due on the estate, the proper classification of bequests, and the entitlements of income earned by assets during estate administration. The trial court ordered that all estate and inheritance taxes should be paid: first, from the personal property residuary as described in section 9 of the will; second, if needed, from the real property residuary in section 7; and third, if necessary, pro rata from the bequests in sections 1, 2, 3 and 8. It further ordered that all income from mineral interests would belong to the beneficiaries under sections 4 and 5, and that all other income would belong to the beneficiaries under the personal property residuary in section 9. In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in part and reversed and rendered in part. We affirm in part and reverse and render in part.
Huling W. Smith died on January 6, 1984. His will divided his estate among several friends, some relatives, and three charities. Article IV of Smith's will authorized the executor to enter "such proceeding as may be necessary in connection with the determination of my estate or inheritance or other succession taxes which may be due on account of or in connection with my death...." Article VI, § 8 provided that his "just debts, funeral expenses, expenses of last illness, and costs and expenses incurred in the probate of this Will" should be deducted from the charities' bequest. Calvin Smith and the other beneficiaries assert that this provision expressly charged the charities' bequest with all the estate and inheritance taxes. We disagree.
This Court has previously held that reference in a will to "debts and expenses" included only those owing by the testatrix at death, funeral expenses, and administration expenses. Stewart v. Selder, 473 S.W.2d 3, 10 (Tex.1971). Such words are not to be construed as charging estate and inheritance taxes against the particular bequest. We hold that such a result is not changed by the insertion into a will of the language "costs and expenses of probate." Since the testator specifically mentioned estate taxes in Article IV, he could just as easily have specified in Article VI that the property passing to the charities should be charged with such taxes. No such provision exists, and although the question is not free from difficulty, we hold that the phrase "just debts, funeral expenses, expenses of last illness, and costs and expenses incurred in the probate of this Will" does not include estate and inheritance taxes under the circumstances presented in this case. See Stewart. 473 S.W.2d at 10.
Because we hold that the Smith will does not provide for the payment of taxes, we must classify each bequest in order to determine the sequence by which these legacies should be charged with federal estate and inheritance taxes due on the estate. 2
Once these bequests are properly categorized, the general rule is that estate and inheritance taxes will be charged, to the extent necessary, as follows: first, from the personal property residuary; second, from the real property residuary; third, pro rata from the general bequests; fourth, pro rata from the demonstrative legacies; and fifth, pro rata from the specific bequests. See Thompson v. Thompson, 149 Tex. 632, 236 S.W.2d 779, 789 (1951); see also Sinnott v. Gidney, 159 Tex. 366, 322 S.W.2d 507, 510 (1959); Houston Land Trust Co. v. Campbell, 105 S.W.2d 430, 433 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso, writ ref'd).
Article VI of Smith's will devises his estate as follows:
(1) $10,000 cash to Cregory Mayberry;
(2) $10,000 cash to John Mahan;
(3) $10,000 cash to Esther Resendiz;
(4) an undivided one-half interest of all mineral interests to his nephew, Calvin Smith;
(5) an undivided one-half interest of all mineral interests in trust for the children of Calvin Smith;
(6) 23.521 acres of land to Michael and Debora Whittemore;
(7) all real estate not specifically bequeathed in (4), (5), and (6) above to Calvin Smith;
(8) the remaining balance of all cash, checking accounts, savings accounts, certificates of deposit, savings certificates, and money market certificates, after the payment of all just debts, funeral expenses, expenses of last illness and costs and expenses incurred in probate;
(a) one-third to West Texas Boys Ranch;
(b) one-third to West Texas Rehabilitation Center;
(c) one-third to Permian Basin Rehabilitation Center for Crippled Children and Adults, Inc.;
(9) all the rest and residue to Calvin Smith and Carol June Smith Brown.
The court of appeals classified the bequests in sections 1, 2 and 3 as demonstrative bequests; the bequests in sections 4 and 5 as general bequests; the bequest in section 6 as a specific bequest; the bequest in section 7 as a real estate residuary; and the bequests in sections 8 and 9 as personal property residuaries. While we agree with the court of appeals' classification of sections 6, 7 and 9, we disagree with the others.
Texas law has long recognized that a testator's bequests can be divided into four categories: specific, demonstrative, general and residuary. See, e.g., Sinnott v. Gidney, 159 Tex. 366, 322 S.W.2d 507 (1959) (residuary); Houston Land Trust Co. v. Campbell, 105 S.W.2d 430 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1937, writ ref'd) (specific, demonstrative, general). Such classification depends upon the intent of the testator as shown by the entire will. Lake v. Copeland, 82 Tex. 464, 17 S.W. 786, 787 (1891). We hold that when classifying bequests in a will, we must consider the testator's intent by looking at the entire dispositive scheme rather than reaching an arbitrary determination based on ritualistic classification. It is necessary to determine, for each item bequeathed in the will, whether the testator intended the property to be disposed of as a specific asset, or merely as a portion of his general estate.
With this principle as our guide, a legacy should be classified as specific if (1) it is described with such particularity that it can be distinguished from all of the testator's other property and (2) the testator intended for the beneficiary to receive that particular item, rather than cash or other property from his general estate. See Campbell, 105 S.W.2d at 433; see also Atkinson, Law of Wills § 132, at 732 (1953). Demonstrative legacies are bequests of sums of money, or of quantity or amounts having a pecuniary value and measure, not in themselves specific, which the testator intended to be charged primarily to a particular fund or piece of property. Campbell, 105 S.W.2d at 433; see Law of Wills § 132, at 134-35; Bailey, Wills § 574, at 367-68 (Texas Practice 1968). A legacy is a general bequest if (1) it bequeaths a designated quantity or value of property or money and (2) the testator intended for it to be satisfied out of his general assets rather than disposing of, or being charged upon, any specific fund or property. See Law of Wills § 132, at 734-35; Page on Wills § 48.2, at 7-8. And finally, a legacy should be classified as a residuary bequest if the testator intended for the gift to bequeath everything left in the estate, after all debts and legal charges have been paid, and after all specific, demonstrative and general gifts have been satisfied. See Shriner's Hospital for Crippled Children of Texas v. Stahl, 610 S.W.2d 147, 152 (Tex.1980); see also Law of Wills § 132, at 736; Page on Wills § 48.10, at 35.
In applying these guidelines to the facts of this case, we note that sections 4 and 5 of Smith's will each devised a one-half interest of "all" Smith's mineral interests. See Brady v. Nichols, 308 S.W.2d 100 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1957), reformed, 158 Tex. 382, 312 S.W.2d 381 (1958). Although the bequests do not identify each of the mineral interests owned by Smith, the description is specific enough to distinguish the gifts from the remainder of Smith's property. Brady, 308 S.W.2d at 111 (). In addition, the legacies clearly indicate that Smith only intended for the beneficiaries to receive the mineral interests that he owned when he died, rather than cash or other property from his general estate. Thus, even though the mineral interests passing under sections 4 and 5 are generically described, the description is definite enough to constitute a specific gift. See id.: see also Page on Wills § 48.4, at 16-17; Law of Wills § 132, at 732-33.
Section 6 bequeaths a 23.521 acre tract of land. The devise, which is described by metes and bounds, is plainly distinguishable from Smith's other property. Thus, the court of appeals correctly held that the land passing under section 6 is a specific bequest. Currie v. Scott, 144 Tex. 1, 187 S.W.2d 551 (1945).
Section 7 devised "all real estate" not specifically bequeathed in sections 4, 5 and 6. Rather than disposing of any particular property, this gift disposes of the real property not bequeathed by other sections of Smith's will; this is typical of a real...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosen v. Wells Fargo Bank Texas, N.A.
...long recognized that all bequests fall into four functional categories: specific, demonstrative, general, and residuary. Hurt v. Smith, 744 S.W.2d 1, 4 (Tex.1987). A legacy is classified as specific if: (1) it is described with such particularity so that it can be distinguished from all of ......
-
River Oaks Trust Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Warren)
...during administration of the estate accrues to the benefit of those who will ultimately receive the corpus of the estate, Hurt v. Smith, 744 S.W.2d 1, 6 (Tex. 1987), only corpus passes to such beneficiaries UNDER a testator's will. Thus, when decedent provided, in Article III of her will, t......
-
Leggett v. U.S., 96-41103
...1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.), guarantees that the beneficiaries will receive any income generated by the estate, see Hurt v. Smith, 744 S.W.2d 1, 6 (Tex.1987), and prevents a beneficiary from criminal prosecution for using estate property, see Palmer v. Texas, 764 S.W.2d 332, 334 (Tex.App.--Hou......
-
Harris v. Hines
...605, 607 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1996, no writ). A bequest or devise can be specific, general, demonstrative, or residuary. Hurt v. Smith, 744 S.W.2d 1, 4 (Tex. 1987). A devise or bequest is specific if it is described in the will with such particularity that the property is distinguished from......