In re Estate of Robinson, 140 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2004, pet. denied).
Testatrix executed Will 1 and Will 2. A jury found that Will 2 was
invalid because Testatrix lacked testamentary capacity and had been
unduly influenced. Accordingly, the court admitted Will 1 to probate.
Proponents of Will 2 appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. The court rejected Proponents’ claim that
the trial court improperly admitted the testimony of a doctor who
testified as an expert witness because the testimony was unscientific
and unreliable for failing to met the standards of Texas case law.
Proponents claimed there was an impermissible analytical gap between the
medical records the doctor examined and the conclusion that Testatrix
lacked capacity. After an extensive review of the doctor’s testimony,
the court determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
by admitting the testimony.
The appellate court also rejected Proponents’ claim that there was
insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of lack of capacity.
The court exhaustively reviewed the evidence presented to the jury and
determined that it was sufficient to support its verdict.
Moral: It is difficult to convince an appellate court to set aside a
jury finding that a testator lacked testamentary capacity.
In re Estate of Robinson, 140 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2004, pet. denied).
A will was properly contested within two years after its admission to
probate as required by Probate Code § 93. After the two years elapsed,
additional parties joined the contest. Both the trial and appellate
court agreed that these parties were not barred by the two year statute
of limitations because they intervened as plaintiffs even though they
would have been barred if they had instituted their suit in a separate
action.
Moral: A party may join a timely filed will contest even after the
normal statute of limitations has expired.