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."
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."
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.)).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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."
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.