Gutierrez v. Rodriguez, 30 S.W.3d 558 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, no pet.).
Testator’s will devised a certain parcel of real property to Son and
Daughter-in-Law. If they should divorce, however, Testator provided for
the land to pass equally to his eight children. Son and Daughter-in-Law
were married when Testator died and the other seven children executed
special warranty deeds conveying their interests to them. Son and
Daughter-in-Law later divorced and the seven children successfully sued
to have their deeds declared null and void due to the occurrence of a
condition subsequent (the divorce) so that all of the children would now
own the property equally.
The appellate court reversed. The court began by examining the devise
and determined that it created a defeasible fee in Son and
Daughter-in-Law subject to an executory limitation in all of Testator’s
children upon Son and Daughter-in-Law’s divorce. The devise could not be
classified as a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent because
Testator did not retain the right to reenter and terminate the estate.
Instead, that right was devised to Testator’s children.
Once the divorce occurred, the eight children would normally have become
the owners of the land. However, in this case, the seven children had
already conveyed their interests to Son and Daughter-in-Law. Under the
principle of estoppel by deed and the doctrine of after-acquired title,
the deeds operated to estop the seven children from making a claim to
the property after the divorce. As there was no real issue as to the
validity of the deeds, Son and Daughter-in-Law continued to own the
property despite their divorce.
Moral: To avoid confusion and litigation, a testator who wishes to
impose conditions or limitations on gifts should seriously considering
using a trust rather than creating complex future interests.