Phillips v. Ivy, 160 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, pet. denied).
Testator’s will left a life estate in his real property to Wife with
remainder to Daughter. The life estate included all mineral interests
such as rents, profits, royalties, and bonuses. Wife executed a
disclaimer of all interests under this provision other than the life
estate. Although the disclaimer seemed unnecessary because Wife was only
granted a life estate, her tax attorney explained that the disclaimer
was to make doubly sure the remainder interest would not be included in
Wife’s estate.
Daughter claimed that Wife’s disclaimer caused her to retain only a
conventional life estate in the property and that she waived her rights
to the enhancements granted in the will such as the mineral rents,
profits, royalties, and bonuses. Both the trial and appellate courts
rejected Daughter’s claims.
The court explained that Testator specifically granted Wife more than a
conventional life estate. Instead, he granted a life estate enhanced by
the mineral interests. The court then stated that there was no reason to
disagree with the trial judge’s conclusion that the disclaimer did not
waive Wife’s interests in the enhanced life estate features.
Note: The dissenting opinion argued that the disclaimer’s reference that
only a “life estate” was retained should be interpreted as the retention
of only a conventional life estate. Thus, the dissent believed that Wife
waived her right to the mineral enhancements.
Moral: To avoid this type of litigation, a disclaimer should precisely
state the interests being disclaimed and retained by tracking the
language of the will.