Vinson v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.).
Testator’s will provided that Executor may sell any of Testator’s
real property including land in a particular subdivision. In a
subsequent clause, Executor was given the authority to continue
Testator’s development of that subdivision. Owners of property in the
subdivision assert that the will requires Executor to finish developing
the land as a subdivision before selling it.
The court held that Executor was under no obligation to develop the
land. The court refused to interpret the word “direct” as used in the
phrase “authorize, empower, and direct” as imposing on Executor a
mandatory duty to develop the land. The court also held that the
specific provision dealing with the subdivision did not trump the prior
provision granting Executor the power to sell.
Moral: A testator should carefully select words which clearly impose
mandatory or precatory obligations as the testator desires. A testator
should avoid mixing words which arguably could reflect conflicting
intents.