Cotten v. Cotten, 169 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied).
Two brothers, Neel and George, disagreed over the validity of their
mother’s will. At issue in this litigation is whether George exercised
undue influence over Mother when she executed her estate planning
documents including a will, trust, and family limited partnership. The
trial court granted summary judgment to George determining that Neel had
failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on his undue influence
claim.
The appellate court affirmed. The court explained that a court may not
infer undue influence by opportunity alone and that there must be
evidence to show the exertion of undue influence. Evidence showed that
Mother was 84 years old and had survived a stroke. Although this
evidence may be important in showing susceptibility and ability to
resist, by itself, it was not enough to show undue influence especially
in this case where Mother was active, had just returned from a trip to
Alaska, and was very engaged in the estate planning process. The court
rejected a variety of circumstances explaining that they did not
demonstrate undue influence. For example, George’s daughter lived with
Mother which, the court explained, did not create a fiduciary
relationship between George and Mother. Also, the fact that George
benefited more than Neel from the estate plan was easily explained by
the strained relationship between Neel and Mother.
Moral: A contestant alleging the invalidity of a will because of undue
influence must be able to produce evidence that undue influence was
exerted. A mere dissatisfaction with the disposition of property is not
enough.