In In re Estate of Wright, decedent’s son appealed an order finding that his mother died intestate. No. 13-23-00043-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 8078 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi November 21, 2024, no pet. history). The son alleged that on May 7, 2007, the mother executed a holographic will (2007 will)
Court Reversed Order Setting Aside The Probating Of A Will Where The Evidence Was Insufficient To Support The Order
In In re Estate of Johnson, an administrator and a third party appealed the trial court’s judgment setting aside the probate of the decedent’s will, removing the administrator, and voiding the sale of an estate asset to the third party. No. 05-23-00087-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 7635 (Tex. App.—Dallas
Court Holds That An Order Was Not Final For Appeal Where There Was Still An Issue Of Intestancy Remaining To Be Determined
In Estate of Long, the plaintiff sued trustees and alleged that she was the only child of the decedent and asserted a cause of action for a will contest and a cause of action for a declaratory judgment action in which she requested the trial court to declare (a)
Appellate Court Affirms Findings That Decedent’s Will Was Not A Product Of Undue Influence And That He Had Mental Capacity
In In re Estate of Hogan, a father executed a new will, leaving his estate to one of his sons (Harold) and disinheriting his other son (Gary). No. 11-20-00170-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 3863 (Tex. App.—Eastland June 9, 2022, no pet. history). Gary filed a will contest, and the trial court heard same in a bench trial. After the court ruled against Gary, he appealed.
Court Affirmed Admitting A Codicil To Probate As The Testator Had Mental Capacity And Was Not Unduly Influenced And Discussed Expert Testimony Issues
In Dillon v. King, one sister contested their father’s will and codicil and also asserted other claims against her sister. No. 05-20-00215-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 2991 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 4, 2022, no pet. history). In 2010, the father executed a will leaving everything equally to his two daughters. Thereafter, he moved to Texas to be near the contestant. The contestant then accessed the father’s bank account. The father told Texas Adult Protective Services that he allowed her to use the account but that she no longer had access to it. Later, the father signed a new codicil, leaving everything to the applicant. After a bench trial, the trial judge admitted the will and codicil to probate and ordered the contestant to take nothing on her other claims. On appeal, the appellate court discussed many different issues.
Court Affirmed Admission Of Will To Probate Over Challenges To Testimony Based On Lack Of Medical Training By A Non-Medical Witness And From An Anesthesiologist
In In re Estate of Aldrete, a decedent’s son from a first marriage had a 1981 will admitted to probate, which left real property to him. No. 04-20-00426-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 322 (Tex. App.—San Antonio January 19, 2022, no pet. history). Later, a second son from a second marriage filed a motion to set aside the 1981 will and admit a newer 2008 will, which left the real property to the decedent’s second wife, the second son’s mother. After the court granted the motion, the first son appealed. The first son initially complained about the process followed by the trial court.
Texas Supreme Court Holds That A Beneficiary May Not Accept Any Benefit From A Will And Then Later Challenging The Will
In In the Estate of Johnson, a child of the decedent accepted over $143,000 from the decedent’s estate and then decided to challenge the will due to mental capacity and undue influence. No. 20-0424, 2021 Tex. LEXIS 426 (Tex. May 28, 2021). The trial court ruled that the child could not accept a benefit under the will and then challenge the will and dismissed the child’s claim. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the child did not receive anything that the child would not also receive if there was no will, and therefore, she was not inconsistent and was not estopped from bringing her will contest. The court held that the executor “failed to satisfy her burden, as the Will’s proponent, by failing to demonstrate that [MacNerland] accepted greater benefits than those to which she was entitled under the Will or intestacy laws.” Id. The Texas Supreme Court accepted the will proponent’s petition for review and reversed the court of appeals.
Court Properly Admitted A Will To Probate Where The Evidence Did Not Establish Mental Incompetence Or Undue Influence As A Matter Of Law
In Neal v. Neal, the decedent died leaving three sons. No. 01-19-00427-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 2051 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] March 18, 2021, no pet. history). She had several wills in the last five years of her life, but her final will left all of her estate to one son. The other sons alleged that the last will was invalid due to mental incompetence and due to undue influence. The trial court found against the contestants and admitted the will to probate, and the contestants appealed.
Court Reverses Summary Judgment On The Issue Of Whether A Testatrix Had The Mental Capacity To Execute A New Wil
In In the Estate of Mahaffey, a testatrix executed a new will nine days before she died of cancer. No. 04-19-00122-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 11171 (Tex. App.—San Antonio December 27, 2019, no pet. history). A niece offered the new will for probate. The new will cut out one
Court Holds That Will Contestant Was Not Estopped From Challenging The Will Due To Accepting Assets
In In the Estate of Johnson, a decedent’s daughter filed a will contest after accepting over $146,000 from the estate. No. 05-18-01193-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 9646 (Tex. App.—Dallas November 4, 2019, no pet.). The executrix filed a motion in limine challenging the daughter’s standing and asked the trial court to dismiss the will contest, which the trial court did. The daughter appealed.
The court of appeals first addressed whether the daughter had standing to file a will contest. The court held that “[d]evisees and heirs-at-law are interested persons.” Id. (citing Tex. Est. Code § 20.018). The court concluded:
Though Lisa Jo claims that Tia did not meet this burden because she failed to introduce the Will into evidence with her petition, we assume the trial court took judicial notice of the Will and its contents, as well as the inventory, which was in the trial court’s files. Because the face of the Will established Tia’s standing as a devisee and an heir-at-law, Tia satisfied her threshold burden.
Id. The court then reviewed the estoppel defense arising from the daughter’s acceptance of estate assets. The court reviewed the law and its own precedent on estoppel in this context: