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