## Facts

- J. J. Koonsman died leaving a will devising his undivided interest in certain Scurry County, Texas real property.
- Paragraph four devised the property to “my son, Alvin Koonsman, … and to his child or children if any survive him,” and provided that if Alvin died “without issue surviving him,” the property would go to Jesse J. Koonsman and Cora Guilliams, share and share alike, “and to their heirs and assigns forever.”
- At the testator’s death, Alvin was alive and had one son.
- The dispute concerned the estates created by paragraph four in Alvin, Alvin’s children, and the named “gift over” beneficiaries (Jesse and Cora).

## Issues

1. Whether paragraph four gave Alvin a fee simple defeasible subject to divestment if he died without surviving issue, or instead created successive estates tied to the survivorship language.
2. What legal effect the phrase “and to his child or children if any survive him” had on the devise, including whether it could be treated as surplusage.
3. How the devise should be construed in light of competing interpretive patterns (defeasible-fee-with-gift-over cases and the traditional Wild’s Case approach).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas rejected the lower courts’ construction that Alvin took merely a defeasible fee.
- The Court held that the phrase “and to his child or children if any survive him” was legally operative and must be given effect in defining the estates created.
- The Court construed the devise as creating successive interests keyed to Alvin’s death and whether his child or children survived him, with the gift over to Jesse and Cora operative only upon the specified contingency (Alvin’s death without surviving issue).

## Legal Principles

- A will must be construed, if reasonably possible, so that no clause or phrase is rendered meaningless; survivorship terms should not be ignored to fit a familiar estate template.
- A devise that combines (i) a gift to a named beneficiary, (ii) a reference to that beneficiary’s “child or children,” and (iii) explicit survivorship language (“if any survive him”), may create successive interests rather than a simple defeasible fee in the first taker.
- The presence of express survivorship language can take a devise outside the ordinary Wild’s Case treatment that might otherwise give concurrent present interests to a parent and children in being.
- A conditional limitation (“in the event of [A]’s death without issue surviving him”) triggers a gift over only upon the stated condition and must be harmonized with other operative language in the devise.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court construed paragraph four to give substantive effect to the survivorship language regarding Alvin’s children, rejecting a characterization of Alvin’s interest as merely a defeasible fee and instead recognizing successive interests that depended on whether Alvin left surviving issue, with the gift over to Jesse and Cora taking effect only if that condition failed.


Guilliams v. Koonsman, 279 S.W.2d 579 (Tex. 1955)