In re Estate of Kuykendall, 206 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.).

 Estate Administration

Muniment of Title

 

Testatrix’s will was admitted to probate as a muniment of title. Later, Contestants attempted to set aside the probate and recover against Proponents for fraud or tortious interference with inheritance rights. The trial court granted an instructed verdict against Contestants but did not grant attorney’s fees in Proponents' favor. Accordingly, both sides appealed.

The appellate court affirmed the directed verdict against Contestants because there was no evidence of probative force raising facts questions on the material issues involved in the case. In determining that there was no breach of fiduciary duty, the court pointed out that when a will is probated as a muniment of title, the named executor is not appointed and thus never assumes a fiduciary role.

Likewise, the appellate court affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees because the decision to award them under the Declaratory Judgments Act is totally discretionary with the court. Proponents' uncontroverted evidence that the attorney’s fees were incurred and were both reasonable and necessary was irrelevant.

Moral: The named executor in a will which is admitted to probate as a muniment of title is not court appointed and thus does not assume fiduciary duties.

 

Estate Administration

Tortious Interference With Inheritance Rights

 

Testatrix’s will was admitted to probate as a muniment of title. Later, Contestants attempted to recover for tortious interference with inheritance rights. The trial court granted an instructed verdict against Contestants.

The appellate court affirmed the directed verdict against Contestants because there was no evidence of probative force showing that Proponent took action to prevent anyone from receiving a gift under the will. The court explained that the will was probated as a muniment of title and thus the beneficiaries received their legal title immediately when the will was admitted. The court discussed the leading Texas case on tortious interference with inheritance rights, King v. Acker, 725 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ), as an example of the type of conduct which needs to be proved to substantiate a claim for tortious interference.

Moral: Evidence is needed to support a claim for tortious interference with inheritance rights.



Back