In re Estate of Huff, 15 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, no pet.).
Proponents attempted to probate Decedent’s 1996 will. Contestants
offered a 1993 will and alleged that the 1996 will was invalid due to
lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. Intervenors claimed
that Decedent revoked both wills with a subsequent holographic will and
requested reasonable attorney fees. Intervenors were not named in the
holographic will but because the will did not completely dispose of
Decedent’s estate, they would take the residuary through intestacy. The
trial court determined that the holographic instrument was not a valid
will but that Intervenors brought their claim in good faith.
Accordingly, the trial court awarded Intervenors almost $20,000 in
attorney’s fees under Probate Code § 243. Proponents appealed.
The appellate court reversed. Probate Code § 243 gives the court
discretion to award attorney’s fees to “designated beneficiaries in a
will or alleged will.” Intervenors were not named in the will either
individually or as a class. (Note: It is an open question in Texas
whether a class gift is a sufficient designation to fall under the
statute.). The court also rejected the argument that Intervenors were
entitled to attorney’s fees merely because they requested appointment as
an administrator with the will annexed. Accordingly, the trial court had
no authority to award attorney’s fees to Intervenors.
Moral: The court’s ability to award attorney’s fees does not extend to
persons who (1) are not designated in the alleged will or (2) apply to
be appointed as the administrator of a document that is not admitted to
probate.