Texas Codes

Tex. Prop. Code § 5.043 (2026)

Reformation Of Interests Violating Rule Against Perpetuities

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 5.043. REFORMATION OF INTERESTS VIOLATING RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES. (a) Within the limits of the rule against perpetuities, a court shall reform or construe an interest in real or personal property that violates the rule to effect the ascertainable general intent of the creator of the interest. A court shall liberally construe and apply this provision to validate an interest to the fullest extent consistent with the creator's intent.

(b) The court may reform or construe an interest under Subsection (a) of this section according to the doctrine of cy pres by giving effect to the general intent and specific directives of the creator within the limits of the rule against perpetuities.

(c) If an instrument that violates the rule against perpetuities may be reformed or construed under this section, a court shall enforce the provisions of the instrument that do not violate the rule and shall reform or construe under this section a provision that violates or might violate the rule.

(d) This section applies to legal and equitable interests, including noncharitable gifts and trusts, conveyed by an inter vivos instrument or a will that takes effect on or after September 1, 1969, and this section applies to an appointment made on or after that date regardless of when the power was created.

Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3484, ch. 576, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1984. Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 895, Sec. 16, eff. Sept. 1, 1991.

SUBCHAPTER D. EXECUTORY CONTRACT FOR CONVEYANCE

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2022 · leading case: ConocoPhillips Co. v. Koopmann, 547 S.W.3d 858 (Tex. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

ConocoPhillips Co. v. Koopmann, 547 S.W.3d 858 (Tex. 2018). “" TEX. PROP. CODE § 5.043(a). See generally 10 POWELL ON REAL PROPERTY § 71.”

Tommy Yowell v. Granite Operating Co. & Granite Operating Co. & Apache Corp. v. Peyton Royalties, L.P., 557 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “043, the Yowell Group avers that “TEX. PROP. CODE § 5.043 authorizes the Court to reform an instrument to satisfy the Rule, while giving effect to the general intent and specific directive of the parties to the Assignment” and “the Court’s ability to reform an instrument is a…”

Matter of Est. of Crowl, 737 P.2d 911 (Okla. 1987). · cites it 2× “555 [1978] and Tex.Property Code § 5.043 [Vernon 1984]. See also, Idaho Code § 55-111 [1948].”

Marsh v. Frost Nat'l Bank, 129 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “043 of the Texas Property Code. Tex. Prop.Code ANN § 5.”

Johnson v. McLaughlin, 840 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. App. 1992). “See Tex.Prop.Code Ann. § 5.043(a) (West 1984) (allowing a court to construe an instrument in such a way that it does not violate the rule against perpetuities).”

Ball v. Knox, 768 S.W.2d 829 (Tex. App. 1989). · cites it 8× “Appellant raises four points of error: (1) the trial court erred in ruling that it is inappropriate to reform the testator’s will under Tex.PROP.Code Ann. § 5.043; (2) the trial court erred in ruling that the disposi-tive provisions of the will are void under Tex.”

Tommy Yowell, Gail Yowell, Harry Graff, El Terico, LLC & Casuarina Investments, LLC (d/B/A Lar Resources, Llc) v. Granite Operating Co. & Apache Corp. (Tex. 2020). · cites it 4× “Among the two petitions, there are four issues presented: (1) whether a reserved overriding royalty interest (ORRI) in a lease that includes an anti-washout provision extending the interest to new leases violates the rule against perpetuities (the Rule); (2) whether Texas…”

Tommy Yowell, Gail Yowell, Harry Graff, El Terico, LLC & Casuarina Investments, LLC (d/B/A Lar Resources, LLC) v. Granite Operating Co. & Apache Corp. (Tex. 2020). · cites it 4× “Among the two petitions, there are four issues presented: (1) whether a reserved overriding royalty interest (ORRI) in a lease that includes an anti-washout provision extending the interest to new leases violates the rule against perpetuities (the Rule); (2) whether Texas…”

Tommy Yowell v. Granite Operating Co. & Granite Operating Co. & Apache Corp. v. Peyton Royalties, L.P. (Tex. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 5.043(a) (West 2021).”

J. Michael Tiner & Martha Tiner v. Cynthia Tiner Johnson (Tex. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “043 does not reference interests that violate the rule prohibiting unreasonable restraints on alienation, and Section 5.”

Anna Spohn Welch Marsh, Noe Marsh, & Holly McKee v. Frost Nat'l Bank, as Indep. of the Est. of Charles Vartan Walker, & Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney Gen. (Tex. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 5.043 (Vernon Supp.”

Nathan Caruso & Jennifer Donner v. Nathaniel Young (Tex. App. 2019). “TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 5.043(d) (West 2014); see Ball v.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— Tex. Prop. Code § 5.043(a) — 5 cases

ConocoPhillips Co. v. Koopmann, 547 S.W.3d 858 (Tex. 2018). “" TEX. PROP. CODE § 5.043(a). See generally 10 POWELL ON REAL PROPERTY § 71.”

Tommy Yowell v. Granite Operating Co. & Granite Operating Co. & Apache Corp. v. Peyton Royalties, L.P., 557 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App. 2018). “043, the Yowell Group avers that “TEX. PROP. CODE § 5.043 authorizes the Court to reform an instrument to satisfy the Rule, while giving effect to the general intent and specific directive of the parties to the Assignment” and “the Court’s ability to reform an instrument is a…”

Tommy Yowell v. Granite Operating Co. & Granite Operating Co. & Apache Corp. v. Peyton Royalties, L.P. (Tex. App. 2021). “TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 5.043(a) (West 2021).”

J. Michael Tiner & Martha Tiner v. Cynthia Tiner Johnson (Tex. App. 2022). “043 does not reference interests that violate the rule prohibiting unreasonable restraints on alienation, and Section 5.”

— Tex. Prop. Code § 5.043(b) — 1 case

Marsh v. Frost Nat'l Bank, 129 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App. 2004). “043 of the Texas Property Code. Tex. Prop.Code ANN § 5.”

— Tex. Prop. Code § 5.043(d) — 2 cases

Nathan Caruso & Jennifer Donner v. Nathaniel Young (Tex. App. 2019). “TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 5.043(d) (West 2014); see Ball v.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.