## Facts

- Floyd Lee Morris executed a will on December 25, 1974 leaving his entire estate to his minor son, excluding his two adult sons, and naming his wife, Sue Morris, as independent executrix and trustee.
- The adult sons contested probate; a jury verdict denied probate, and the trial court entered judgment for the contestants.
- The court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment admitting the will to probate.
- The contestants’ revocation claim relied on testimony from the testator’s aunt that, in early January 1975, the testator demanded the will be obtained, read, and destroyed, and that Sue tore up an envelope after the demand.
- The instrument offered for probate was the original December 25 will, produced intact without evidence of mutilation or destruction.
- Contestants also sought to deny Sue benefits and impose a constructive trust, alleging her statements and conduct were fraudulent.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence proved statutory revocation of the December 25, 1974 will under Texas Probate Code § 63.
2. Whether alleged post-execution conduct by the will’s beneficiary supported fraud-based equitable relief, including a constructive trust.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment admitting the will to probate.
- The Court held the evidence was legally insufficient to show revocation because statutory revocation requires an authorized act (or writing) and the will was not destroyed or canceled.
- The Court rejected the fraud and constructive-trust theory because there was no proof the beneficiary’s conduct caused the testamentary disposition or prevented revocation.

## Legal Principles

- Revocation of a will is governed by statute; an intent to revoke, without completion of a statutorily authorized revocatory act or writing, is ineffective.
- Revocation by destruction requires actual destruction or cancellation by the testator or at the testator’s direction in the testator’s presence; a mistaken belief that destruction occurred does not satisfy the statute.
- A constructive trust based on fraud requires proof of wrongdoing connected to the testamentary transfer and a causal link between the wrongdoing and the challenged disposition; post-execution conduct, without such causation, does not justify equitable reallocation of the estate.

## Conclusion

The court admitted the will to probate because the contestants failed to prove revocation by the exclusive statutory methods, and it declined to impose a constructive trust absent evidence that any alleged fraud affected the making or continued validity of the testamentary plan.


Morris v. Morris, 642 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. 1982)