A recent decision by the Fourth Court of Appeals reiterates the Texas judiciary’s commitment to interpreting the four corners of a document where language is unambiguous, and to giving plain and ordinary meaning to the entirety of the document (and the language used within it). In Liska v. Dworaczyk, No. 04-22-00170-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 457, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 24, 2024, no pet. h.), after determining the language was unambiguous, the Court reviewed the entire document to determine the intended conveyances in Mr. Dworaczyk’s will.
Eugene Dworaczyk owned a mineral interest underlying 118.4 acres in Karnes County, Texas, comprised of two distinct units – the Bowers Unit and the Dragon Unit. The Dragon Unit made up 21.26 of Eugene’s 118.4 acres, with the remainder associated with the Bowers Unit. Eugene died in March of 2019, leaving behind a will executed in February of 2019. In his will, he left cash and certain property to Debra Liska and named her as the independent executrix and as the sole beneficiary of the residuary estate.
Among others, Eugene’s will made the following bequest:
I, hereby give, devise and bequest to the hereinafter named individuals a ONE-TENTH (1/10) interest in the Mineral Interest I own in 118.4 acres near Gillet, Karnes County, Texas, known as the Dragon Unit;
To PATRICIA DWORACZYK a ONE-TENTH (1/10),
To ANTHONY L. DWORACZYK a ONE-TENTH (1/10) INTEREST,
To KELLIE ANN DWORACZYK a ONE-TENTH (1/10) INTEREST,
To PATRICK DWORACZYK a ONE-TENTH (1/10) INTEREST,
To WALTER DOTY a ONE-TENTH (1/10) INTEREST,
To JAQUELINE LEAVY a ONE-TENTH (1/10) INTEREST,
To KAYLA JENDRUSCH a ONE-TENTH (1/10) INTEREST,
To ED JENDRUSCH, III a ONE-TENTH (1/10) INTEREST,
To MARK A. WILLIAMSON a ONE-TENTH (1/10) INTEREST,
To STEPHEN J. WILLIAMSON a ONE-TENTH (1/10) INTEREST.
Based on this language, Liska, as the independent executrix, executed a mineral deed to distribute these mineral interests, which conveyed an undivided one-hundredth share of the mineral interest underlying the entire 118.4 acres to each of the nine surviving devisees named in the bequest. (One of the devisees predeceased Eugene, and the parties all agreed that the bequest to him had lapsed.) Liska also executed a deed conveying to herself in her individual capacity the remaining mineral interests as the sole beneficiary of the residuary estate. These deeds were subsequently recorded in the real property records in Karnes County, Texas.
The lawsuit arose when seven of the beneficiaries challenged the deed executed by Liska. While the “Dworaczyk beneficiaries” agreed their interest covered the entire 118.4 acres, they disputed the 1/100th conveyance and argued they should each receive a 1/10th interest. Conversely, Liska, in her individual capacity, and the other two beneficiaries (“Liska and the Williamson beneficiaries”) counterclaimed, alleging that the Dworaczyk beneficiaries’ interest was only in the portion of the 118.4 acres known as the Dragon Unit and should be interpreted as 1/100th of that interest.
Ultimately, the Fourth Court of Appeals determined that the unambiguous language of Eugene’s will bequeathed 1/10 interest to each beneficiary in the Dragon Unit only, rather than in the entire 118.4 acres. Here is how they got there:
The language in Eugene’s will specifically includes the words – “known as the Dragon Unit” – when conveying the interest to the Dworaczyk beneficiaries and others. In their objective to “discern and effectuate the testator’s intent as reflected in the instrument as a whole,” the Court determined that Eugene intended to convey only those interests pertaining to the Dragon Unit. To adopt that the interest was in the entire 118.4 acres would render the words “known as the Dragon Unit” meaningless. Therefore, after a careful examination of the words chosen and the sense in which they were used, the Dworaczyk and other beneficiaries only took a mineral interest underlying on part of the 118.4 acres – that which was known as the Dragon Unit.
Having determined where the beneficiaries’ interests were, the Court next considered how much interest they had. Again, the Court looked to ascertain the testator’s intent. In doing so, the Court evaluated the language and considered the provisions as a whole, attempting to harmonize and give effect consistent with the testator’s intent. Reviewing the remainder of the will with this bequest, the Court determined each beneficiary listed should receive a 1/10 interest in the Dragon Unit mineral interests. In reviewing Eugene’s words, there is nothing to express any intent to give only 1/100 to the beneficiaries, as he states that he desires to give 1/10 to each person. The Court determined that simply including “a one-tenth interest (1/10)” after each beneficiary’s name does not express any intention to further divide the land. Additionally, the Court reasoned, this construction was supported by the will as a whole, since Eugene fully disposed of every real property identified in his will.
Applying the four corners doctrine, the Court set out to give meaning and purpose to the language, all the words used, and the document as a whole, ultimately determining that the language was unambiguous.
