- 7 -
before us; therefore, we must examine the question as if we were
a Texas court. Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456,
465 (1967).
In Texas, the cardinal rule for construing a will mandates
that the decedent's intent be ascertained by looking to the will
as a whole, as set forth within the four corners of the document.
Perfect Union Lodge No. 10 v. Interfirst Bank, 748 S.W.2d 218,
220 (Tex. 1988); Henderson v. Parker, 728 S.W.2d 768, 770 (Tex.
1987); see also Bergin v. Bergin, 159 Tex. 83, 315 S.W.2d 943,
946 (1958) (stating that a court must examine a will in its
entirety to ascertain the testator's intent). The court's
responsibility is to construe the will to effectuate the
testatrix's intent as far as legally possible. Perfect Union
Lodge No. 10 v. Interfirst Bank, supra at 221. In interpreting
the will, courts presume that there was nothing superfluous or
meaningless in the will and that every word had meaning and
played a part in the disposition of the property. Marlin v.
Kelley, 678 S.W.2d 582, 587 (Tex. App. 1984, writ granted 1985),
affd. Kelley v. Marlin, 714 S.W.2d 303 (Tex. 1986). If any
particular clause or paragraph, considered alone, indicates an
intent contrary to the intent manifested by the whole instrument,
the court should disregard that inconsistent clause or paragraph.
Disabled Am. Veterans v. Mullin, 773 S.W.2d 408, 410 (Tex. App.
1989, no writ); Bergin v. Bergin, supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011