In In re Estate of Wetzel, a widow and independent administrator of her husband’s estate appealed a trial court’s order denying her requested family allowance.
Continue Reading Court Affirmed Order Denying A Family Allowance
Court Affirms Decision That Executor Applicant Was Unsuitable For That Position
In In the Estate of Johnson, an applicant to be an independent administrator appealed a court’s decision to not appoint him due to his being unsuitable. No. 02-20-00133-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 7138 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth August 26, 2021, no pet. history). The court of appeals first discussed the standard of review of orders finding a person unsuitable:
A probate court’s order finding a person is unsuitable to serve as executor is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. When applying an abuse-of-discretion standard, the normal sufficiency-of-the-evidence review is part of the abuse-of-discretion review and not an independent ground for reversal. The probate court abuses its discretion if its actions are unreasonable or arbitrary or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. “Under an abuse of discretion standard of review, we must make an independent inquiry of the entire record to determine if the trial court abused its discretion and are not limited to reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of fact made.”
Continue Reading Court Affirms Decision That Executor Applicant Was Unsuitable For That Position
Court’s Order Ending Family Allowance To Decedent’s Wife Was Reversed Due To A Lack Of Notice To The Wife
In In re Estate of Clark, a trial court entered an order allowing a family allowance for the decedent’s wife. No. 02-20-00211-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 5685 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 15, 2021, no pet. history). After the wife was removed as the administrator of the estate, the court entered another order ending the family allowance.
Continue Reading Court’s Order Ending Family Allowance To Decedent’s Wife Was Reversed Due To A Lack Of Notice To The Wife
Relative Had Standing To Assert Slayer Statute And Declaration Regarding Rights To Insurance Proceeds Over Victim’s Estate
In Lawrence v. Bailey, a son killed his parents with a sledge hammer. No. 01-19-00799-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 4716 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 15, 2021, no pet. history). The son was a named beneficiary of the father’s life insurance policy. The insurance company filed an interpleader action regarding the life insurance proceeds. The trial court awarded those to the father’s estate, and the father’s brother then filed a motion for new trial. The brother alleged that under the slayer statute, that he was entitled to the proceeds. The trial court denied the motion, and the brother appealed.
The court of appeals first held that the brother had standing to seek a declaration regarding the ownership of the insurance proceeds. The court noted that the brother argued:
Under the Texas Slayer Statute, a beneficiary of a life insurance policy or contract forfeits the beneficiary’s interest in the policy or contract if the beneficiary is a principal or an accomplice in willfully bringing about the death of the insured.” See Tex. Ins. Code. § 1103.151. He pointed out that, “[i]f there is no contingent beneficiary entitled to receive the proceeds of a life insurance policy or contract, the nearest relative of the insured is entitled to receive the proceeds.” Id. § 1103.152(c).