In re Estate of Halbert, 172 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. denied).
Testatrix died leaving behind three instruments with disparate
distribution schemes that could be deemed to be her last will. A dispute
arose as to which of these documents should be probated as her will. The
beneficiaries of all of the potential wills signed a mediated settlement
agreement. Later, however, one of the beneficiaries disputed the
validity of the settlement agreement and sought to have it declared
unenforceable. The trial court held that the agreement was valid.
The appellate court reversed. The court explained that the agreement not
to probate Testatrix’s will did not contain an alternative distribution
scheme and thus was unenforceable. The court recognized that “[a] family
settlement agreement is an alternative method of administration in Texas
that is a favorite of the law.” Halbert at 199. However, an agreement
not to probate a will must be accompanied by an agreement stating how
the decedent’s property is to be distributed. See In re Estate of
Morris, 577 S.W.2d 748 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The
court examined the settlement agreement and found that it contained
neither an express nor implied distribution scheme such as to probate
one of the three wills or to have Testatrix’s estate pass by intestacy.
Moral: To be enforceable, a family settlement agreement must explain how
the decedent’s estate is to be distributed.