## Facts

- A testator’s will disposed of her entire estate, including about 316 acres in Robertson County, Texas.
- The dispositive clause left the residue to her son (William Robert “Bobby” Gray) and immediately stated that “the land is not to be sold but passed on down to your children,” naming Annette Knopf, Allison Kilway, and Stanley Gray.
- Bobby and his wife later conveyed the land by warranty deeds to a third-party purchaser (Polasek Farms, LLC).
- Two of Bobby’s children (Knopf and Stanley Gray) sued for a declaration that the will gave Bobby only a life estate in the land with remainder to the children, and asserted fiduciary-duty claims tied to Bobby’s role as executor.
- The defendants contended the will devised Bobby a fee simple and that the “not to be sold” language was merely an unenforceable disabling restraint on alienation.

## Issues

1. Whether the will’s dispositive provision unambiguously devised the land to Bobby in fee simple or instead created a life estate in Bobby with remainder to the named children.
2. Whether language stating the land “is not to be sold but passed on down to your children” is an invalid disabling restraint attached to a fee simple or language defining a lesser estate.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals and rendered judgment for the petitioners.
- The court held the will unambiguously conveyed Bobby a life estate in the 316-acre tract and vested the remainder in the named children.
- The court rejected the lower courts’ view that the will granted a fee simple subject to a void disabling restraint, concluding the language defined the estate granted.

## Legal Principles

- A will is construed to ascertain and give effect to the testator’s intent as expressed within the instrument’s four corners, reading the document as a whole.
- Texas law presumes a devise of real property passes a fee simple unless a lesser estate is clearly intended; no technical words are required to create a life estate.
- Language directing that land is “not to be sold” and must be “passed on down” to identified descendants may evidence a present-and-future interest split (life estate with remainder), rather than an external restraint on alienation.
- A void disabling restraint analysis applies to restraints imposed on a fee simple; by contrast, limits on transfer beyond a life tenant’s interest flow from the nature of a life estate, because a life tenant cannot convey more than the life tenant owns.

## Conclusion

The court construed the will to effectuate the testator’s expressed plan to keep the land in the family by granting Bobby a life estate and granting his children the remainder, making Bobby’s later fee-simple conveyance ineffective beyond his life interest.


Knopf v. Gray, 545 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. 2018)