In In re Estate of Martinez, a son appealed an order finding that his mother’s holographic will devised certain property to his daughter. No. 04-22-00708-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 1258 (Tex. App.—San Antonio February 21, 2024, no pet. history). The court of appeals affirmed. The court stated as follows concerning the contents of the will:

The first page of the will provides Marilyn’s late second husband was “to get everything if I die first to include all my belongings, valuables, jewelry.” It then provides: “I will list what special items to give to who.” Marilyn devised 69 acres in Cambellton, Texas “[e]qually” to Clifton, Desiray, and Desiray’s two siblings. The second page first lists a property located on Peterson Avenue in San Antonio and next to it states: “Desi Lives here.” The will then lists a property located on Kingley Drive in San Antonio and states Marilyn and her second husband “live here.”

Id. The daughter argued that by listing who lived in the property, the executrix was stating who the property should go to and the father disagreed as there was no clear language bequeathing the property to his daughter (if he was correct, then the property was not included in the will and would pass to him by intestacy). The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding and agreed with the daughter:

In reviewing the will’s language, considering its provisions as a whole, and attempting to harmonize them so as to give effect to the testatrix’s intent, it is clear Marilyn intended to devise the property she listed in the will. Marilyn was a layperson and no evidence was presented she “received legal assistance in drafting the will or was otherwise familiar with technical meanings.” Although not a paragon of precision, the will plainly states Marilyn’s second husband was “to get everything if I die first to include all my belongings, valuables, jewelry.” It then provides “I will list what special items to give to who.” Marilyn then listed certain property to be devised by the will. Although she did not state to whom the Peterson and Kingley properties would be devised, she did identify by name who lived at each property. And harmonizing that language with her intent as a whole and according the will a liberal construction, we conclude Marilyn intended to devise the two properties to the named persons occupying them. This interpretation also permits this court to reject an interpretation requiring us to conclude Marilyn did a “useless thing” by listing the properties in the will for no reason at all.

Id.