Estate of Gilbert, 513 S.W.3d 767 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.).
After two romantic partners broke up, Man changed
his will which previously left his estate to Woman by naming Son as his
sole beneficiary. After Man died and his will admitted to probate, Woman
claimed that Man breached his contract to make a will naming her as the
sole beneficiary and was promissorily estopped from changing his will.
The trial court concluded that as a matter of law she had no viable
cause of action. Woman appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. Man’s oral promise to
name Woman as his sole beneficiary is not enforceable. Estates Code
§ 254.004 provides that to establish a contract to make a will, there
must first be a written binding agreement or terms of a will stating
that a contract exists and its provisions. Because no writing exists, no
contractual will could be established. Likewise, the court rejected
Woman’s promissory estoppel claim explaining that “section 254.004 bars
a claim for promissory estoppel on an oral promise to devise property
that is disposed of in a will.” Gilbert at 772.
Moral: A contract to make a will must be
memorialized in a writing, either an enforceable contract or the will
itself.