Texas Court Holds that There was a Fact Issue on the Settlors’ Intent
This post has been viewed 3,807 times.
The appeals court found that the “question of Ignacio’s and Myra’s intent was not shown by clear and convincing evidence as a matter of law.” Instead, there was a scrivener’s error, a mistake of fact that Ignacio and Myra only had two children. There was no dispute that the older daughter was Myra’s natural child and Ignacio’s adopted child. The Restatement (Third) of Property provides, “A donative document, though unambiguous, may be reformed to conform the text to the donor’s intention if it is established by clear and convincing evidence (1) that a mistake of fact or law, whether in expression or inducement, affected specific terms of the document; and (2) what the donor’s intention was.
The appeals court found that the “question of Ignacio’s and Myra’s intent was not shown by clear and convincing evidence as a matter of law.” Instead, there was a scrivener’s error, a mistake of fact that Ignacio and Myra only had two children. There was no dispute that the older daughter was Myra’s natural child and Ignacio’s adopted child. The Restatement (Third) of Property provides, “A donative document, though unambiguous, may be reformed to conform the text to the donor’s intention if it is established by clear and convincing evidence (1) that a mistake of fact or law, whether in expression or inducement, affected specific terms of the document; and (2) what the donor’s intention was.
Read original articleTags:
