Probate disputes can tear families apart. Siblings who grew up together suddenly find themselves on opposite sides of a courtroom. They fight over their parents’ estates for years. The emotional and financial toll can spiral out of control.
Many families turn to mediation to resolve probate disputes. They hammer out settlement agreements intending to resolve “all issues” between them. But what happens when the settlement agreement addresses some matters while remaining completely silent on others? Does silence create ambiguity? Or does silence mean the underlying will or intestacy laws still control?
The recent Ulmer v. Ulmer, 2025 WL 2370841 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 14, 2025, no pet. h.) case gets into this question. It involves a settlement agreement that seemingly should have overridden the terms of the prior will, but didn’t expressly say that it did so.
Facts & Procedural History
Craddock and Ollie owned an approximately 4,200-acre ranch in Erath County as their separate property. Each spouse owned an undivided interest in the property. They had three sons: Victor, Neal, and Lynn.
Ollie died in 1970. Her will devised a life estate in her ranch interest to Craddock. The remainder would pass to their three sons equally. In 2002, Craddock executed a new will. This will left the entire residue of his estate to Lynn alone. The residue included Craddock’s separate interest in the ranch.
When Craddock died in 2010, Lynn filed the 2002 will for probate. Victor and Neal immediately challenged the will’s validity. They claimed their father lacked testamentary capacity when he signed it. They also alleged that Lynn had exerted undue influence over their father. Victor and Neal wanted the court to probate an earlier 1996 will instead. That earlier will left Craddock’s entire estate to Victor and Neal.
The brothers mediated their dispute in 2014. They entered into a mediated settlement agreement (or “MSA”) that purported to resolve “all issues relating to Craddock Ulmer’s Estate and any other issues between and among the parties.” The MSA contained several provisions about the ranch. It required the sale of 600 acres with proceeds split three ways. It divided oil and gas revenue equally among all three brothers. It split the property tax burden into thirds. It required Lynn to lease the entire ranch from Victor and Neal for three years at $25,000 per year. It gave Lynn an option to purchase the remaining acreage.
The MSA also addressed the will contest directly. Victor and Neal agreed to release Lynn from “any and all claims” related to the probate case. They agreed to nonsuit their will contest. Lynn would be appointed executor of Craddock’s estate “subject to the terms of this agreement.” The MSA stated that its terms would control if any provision conflicted with Craddock’s will.
After the brothers executed the MSA, Victor and Neal dismissed their will contest. The trial court approved the MSA in 2016. The court admitted Craddock’s 2002 will to probate. Lynn received his letters testamentary.
About a year later, Lynn sued Victor and Neal for breach of the MSA. He claimed they failed to pay their share of taxes and expenses. He alleged they refused to execute the lease required by the settlement. Victor and Neal countersued. They sought declaratory relief about the MSA’s meaning. They argued the MSA had divided Craddock’s separate property interest in the ranch equally among all three brothers.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment in Lynn’s favor. It declared that Victor and Neal did not own any portion of Craddock’s undivided interest in the ranch. The court found that Lynn owned one hundred percent of Craddock’s estate interest. The court calculated that Lynn owned approximately sixty percent of the entire ranch. Victor and Neal each owned approximately twenty percent (their shares from their mother’s estate only).
Victor and Neal appealed. They raised eleven issues on appeal, which was the subject of the court opinion.
Settlement Agreements Under the Texas Estates Code
The Texas Estates Code expressly authorizes parties to resolve probate disputes through settlement agreements. These agreements are typically referred to as Family Settlement Agreements.
The authority for this is found in Section 351.151 of the Estates Code. It says that interested persons can enter into written agreements regarding the estate’s administration or distribution. These agreements can resolve disputes about will construction, for example. They can settle contests over the estate representative’s actions. They can also address disagreements about property distribution.
The statute requires that settlement agreements be in writing. An oral settlement—even one reached during mediation—cannot bind the parties unless reduced to writing and signed. The writing requirement protects parties from misunderstandings about what they agreed to.
Once properly executed, a settlement agreement becomes a binding contract between the parties. The agreement must be construed according to contract law principles. Courts apply the same rules of contract interpretation to settlement agreements as they would to any other contract.
How Courts Interpret Contracts in Texas
Texas courts follow well-established principles when interpreting contracts. The primary goal is to determine the parties’ intent as expressed in the written document. Courts look to the “four corners” of the agreement. They give contract terms their plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning.
Contract interpretation begins with the language the parties actually used. Courts cannot rewrite contracts to align with what parties wish they had said. They cannot look to what parties subjectively believed the contract meant. The focus remains on the objective meaning of the words on the page.
A contract is unambiguous when it can be given a certain or definite legal meaning. The mere fact that parties disagree about a contract’s meaning does not make it ambiguous. Many losing parties claim ambiguity after realizing they made a bad deal. Texas law does not rescue parties from unfavorable contracts simply because they now regret their choices.
A contract is ambiguous only when its meaning is uncertain and doubtful. The language must be reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. Both interpretations must be reasonable readings of the actual contract language. A party cannot create ambiguity by proposing a strained or unreasonable reading of clear terms.
Courts determine whether a contract is ambiguous as a matter of law. This determination is a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal, as in this case. If the contract is unambiguous, the court interprets it as a matter of law. The court gives effect to the parties’ expressed intent without considering extrinsic evidence of what they might have meant.
What Happens When a Settlement Is Silent on Property Rights?
This brings us to the question at hand, namely, what happens when a settlement agreement is silent on property rights? The question at the heart of the Ulmer case was what happens when a settlement agreement carves out specific financial benefits but says nothing about underlying property ownership.
Victor and Neal argued that the MSA’s silence created ambiguity. They contended the agreement’s failure to specify ownership percentages meant the issue remained unresolved. They wanted to introduce evidence about what they believed the settlement meant.
The appeals court rejected this reasoning. Silence does not equal ambiguity. An agreement is ambiguous only when its actual language is uncertain or reasonably susceptible to multiple interpretations. An agreement is not ambiguous simply because it fails to address a topic the parties wish it had covered.
The court explained that the MSA carved out specific exceptions to the 2002 will. Under that will, Lynn would have received one hundred percent of Craddock’s estate including his ranch interest. Victor and Neal would have received nothing from their father’s estate. The MSA changed this outcome by granting Victor and Neal certain financial benefits. They would receive one-third of the proceeds from selling 600 acres. They would receive one-third of oil and gas revenue. They would receive lease payments from Lynn. They would share in artwork proceeds.
These provisions clearly conflicted with the 2002 will. The MSA explicitly stated that its terms would control when they conflicted with the will. So the MSA’s financial provisions superseded the will to that limited extent.
But the MSA never mentioned ownership of the ranch itself. It did not say “the brothers shall own the ranch in equal shares.” It did not say “Craddock’s ranch interest is hereby divided equally.” It contained no language that could reasonably be read to redistribute property ownership.
The court held that where the MSA was silent, the 2002 will controlled. Lynn took one hundred percent of Craddock’s separate property interest in the ranch under the will. The MSA granted Victor and Neal contractual rights to certain financial benefits from that property. Yet it did not transfer any ownership interest to them.
The Takeaway
Settlement agreements in Texas probate cases have to be drafted with precision. When a settlement carves out specific exceptions to a will or intestacy scheme, those exceptions must be stated explicitly. Silence on property distribution means the underlying will or law controls. Parties cannot later claim they “understood” the settlement to redistribute property when the written agreement says nothing about ownership. This also applies in mediations in probate cases. Families mediating probate disputes have to ensure their settlement agreements clearly address every issue they intend to resolve. Otherwise, they may find themselves back in court years later—fighting over what they thought they had settled, as in this case.
Our Fort Worth Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with probate mediation and settlement agreements. Probate is what we do. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the probate process.We have years of combined experience we can use to support and guide you with probate and estate matters. Call us today for a FREE attorney consultation.
Disclaimer: The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The information presented may not apply to your situation and should not be acted upon without consulting a qualified probate attorney. We encourage you to seek the advice of a competent attorney with any legal questions you may have.
