Holley v. Grigg

9 Citing cases

  1. Beatty v. Holmes

    233 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. App. 2007)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Thus, section 450 expressly authorizes the non-testamentary transfer of money, property, or other benefits as provided in a variety of written instruments effective as contracts, including securities. See id.; Holley v. Grigg, 65 S.W.3d 289, 293 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2001, no pet.). In his motion for summary judgment, Holmes argued that section 450 governs the transfer of securities being held as "joint tenants with right of survivorship."

  2. Smith-Gilbard v. Perry

    332 S.W.3d 709 (Tex. App. 2011)   Cited 22 times

    A mutual mistake regarding a material fact is grounds for avoiding a contract, but the mistake must be mutual rather than unilateral. Holley v. Grigg, 65 S.W.3d 289, 295 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2001, no pet.). "A mistake by only one party to an agreement, not known to or induced by acts of the other party[,] will not constitute grounds for relief."

  3. Brown v. Underwood

    No. 11-20-00138-CV (Tex. App. May. 26, 2022)

    A mutual mistake regarding a material fact is grounds for avoiding a contract, but the mistake must be mutual rather than unilateral. Smith-Gilbard, 332 S.W.3d at 713 (citing Holley v. Grigg, 65 S.W.3d 289, 295 (Tex. App.-Eastland 2001, no pet.)).

  4. In the Estate of Wallis, 12-07-00022-CV

    No. 12-07-00022-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 26, 2010)

    Because insurance policies, retirement accounts, and pension plans are nontestamentary, there is no instrument relating to them that must be probated nor does the personal representative of a decedent's estate have any power or duty with respect to the assets involved. Holley v. Grigg, 65 S.W.3d 289, 293 (Tex. App.-Eastland 2001, no pet.). Nor does the right to funds from insurance policies, retirement accounts, and pension plans accrue as a testamentary right to those who will take under the laws of descent and distribution.

  5. Johnson v. Conner

    260 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. App. 2008)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that deed conveyed all mineral interests, despite any intent not to do so, when it stated that "[n]one of the [mineral, water, royalty, timber, or other interests] are available to be conveyed" because that language was not an explicit reservation

    A mutual mistake asserting a material fact constitutes a ground for avoiding a contract, but the mistake must be mutual rather than unilateral. Holley v. Grigg, 65 S.W.3d 289, 295 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2001, no pet.). When seeking relief from a mutual mistake, the parties seeking reformation must of course prove what the true agreement was, but their case is not made by proof that there was an agreement which is at variance with the writing.

  6. Wentwood Woodside I, LP v. GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corp.

    419 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2005)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that "section 4012a does not give rise to a private right of action under Texas law for negligence per se"

    Under Texas law, the unilaterally mistaken party alone bears responsibility for the consequences of its error. See, e.g., Holley v. Grigg, 65 S.W.3d 289, 295 (Tex.App.-Eastland, 2001, no writ); Oldaker v. Travelers Ins. Co., 497 S.W.2d 402, 404 (Tex.App.-El Paso, 1973, no writ); GeoSouthern Energy Corp. v. Chesapeake Operating, Inc., 274 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted) (stating that equitable reformation of a contract is available only when a mutual mistake in drafting prevents the written instrument from reflecting the meeting of the minds). Nevertheless, even if we were to assume that the Errors and Omissions clause was incorporated into the Royal policy with respect to the Woodside Village, it still would not apply.

  7. Coral Prod. Corp. v. Central Resources

    273 Neb. 379 (Neb. 2007)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Moore v. State, 388 Md. 623, 882 A.2d 256 (2005). See, e.g., Holley v. Grigg, 65 S.W.3d 289 (Tex.App. 2001). See, also, State v. Dunster, 262 Neb. 329, 631 N.W.2d 879 (2001); Peterson v. Cook, 175 Neb. 296, 121 N.W.2d 399 (1963).

  8. Irwin v. Irwin

    307 S.W.3d 383 (Tex. App. 2010)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an estate lacked standing to pursue a claim against a deceased employee's former wife for a constructive trust on life insurance proceeds

    Because an insurance policy is statutorily characterized as nontestamentary, "the instrument does not . . . have to be probated, nor does the personal representative have any power or duty with respect to the assets involved." Holley v. Grigg, 65 S.W.3d 289, 293 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2001, no pet.) (quoting with approval, UNIF. PROBATE CODE 6-201 cmt. (1997)). "It is plain the right to the proceeds does not accrue as a testamentary right to those who will take under the; laws of descent and distribution."

  9. Eisen v. Cap. One

    232 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. App. 2007)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Construing the term "beneficiary" in both Article VI and Article IX of testator's will to have the same definition pursuant to the definition testator provided for the term in Article VI

    We generally recognize that the singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular unless expressly provided otherwise. See e.g. Holley v. Grigg, 65 S.W.3d 289, 294 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2001, no pet.). The trustor did not expressly provide otherwise, and his use of the term "beneficiary" includes Suanne and Dan by definition.