In In re Estate of Bird, Jimmy and Ada were married for almost 70 years and operated a family ranch together. No. 07-24-00184-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4535 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 26, 2025, no pet.). In his will, Jimmy bequeathed to Ada “all of my property, real, personal and mixed of whatever description and wherever located, for her Natural Life” and gave her power to sell or dispose of his estate. The will contained no remainder provision for disposition of Jimmy’s property after Ada’s death. After Jimmy’s death in 2020, Ada sold some ranch land to her grandson Brandon. After Ada’s death in 2023, Brandon sought to exercise an option to purchase more ranch land from Jimmy’s estate, which was disputed by Sherry and Dana.
The legal issue concerned whether the language in Jimmy Allen Bird’s will, which bequeathed all property to his wife Ada “for her Natural Life,” granted her only a life estate or a fee simple absolute interest as the will lacked any remainder provision specifying the disposition of property after Ada’s death.
The court addressed the strong presumption under Texas law that a testator intends to dispose of the entire estate by will and not die intestate as to any part of the property. The absence of a remainder provision was interpreted as evidence that Jimmy intended Ada to receive a fee simple interest, not merely a life estate. The court stated:
“An estate in land that is conveyed or devised is a fee simple unless the estate is limited by express words or unless a lesser estate is conveyed or devised by construction or operation of law.”… “[T]he very purpose of a will is to make such provisions that the testator will not die intestate.” The making of a will creates a strong presumption the testator intended to dispose of his entire estate and “did not intend to die intestate as to the whole or any part of his property.” Sherry and Dana contend Jimmy’s Will granted Ada only a life estate. But there can be no life estate in property, real or personal, without a remainder… Only in exceptional cases will courts uphold a partial intestacy…. Based on the entirety of Jimmy’s Will, he did not intend the phrase “for her natural life” to create a life estate. He made no provision for the disposition of his estate upon Ada’s death. To reiterate, there can be no life estate in property without a remainder provision. The absence of any remaindermen in Jimmy’s Will is a strong indicator he did not intend to give Ada only a life estate. The two paragraphs relevant here express Jimmy’s intent to grant Ada a fee simple estate. Additionally, the construction advanced by Sherry and Dana would result in a partial intestacy in a case that is not exceptional and would directly conflict with Jimmy’s intent to dispose of his entire estate. His execution of a will and codicil and the four corners of those documents strongly indicate his intent not to die intestate. Generally, the greatest estate will be conferred on a devisee that the terms of the devise permit. To overcome the presumption that Jimmy intended to give Ada a greater estate, his Will would have had to clearly and unequivocally provide for a life estate. Id. Without a remainder provision in Jimmy’s Will, it does not “clearly and unequivocally” provide a life estate to Ada. In applying de novo review, we find no error by the trial court in construing Jimmy’s Will and Codicil as granting Ada his entire estate in fee simple.
Id.
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment construing the will as granting Ada a fee simple absolute interest in all of Jimmy’s property.
[View source.]
