Coleman v. Coleman, 350 S.W.3d 201 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.).
Testator’s will left all of his mineral interests in property that a specific company was “presently making payments to me” to his wife for life. After Testator died, additional wells were drilled on this property and his wife received the royalties. Other beneficiaries claimed that the royalties from the new wells belonged to them instead claiming that the will devised the interest only in wells that were drilled at the time of Testator’s death.
Both the trial and appellate courts rejected the claim of the other beneficiaries. The court held that the language was unambiguous. The terms of the devise clearly referred to the mineral interests in a particular parcel of land, not to specific wells that were drilled on the land.
Moral: To avoid this type of issue, grants should contain more succinct or technically precise phrasing