In re Estate of Reno, 443 S.W.3d 143 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.).
Note: This case was released at
the end of 2014. The reason for the five year delay
is unknown.
Testatrix wrote a will and a codicil thereto in the
early 2000’s and another will in 2007. After her
death, the children of her first marriage successfully probated the
first will and obtained a ruling that Testatrix was incompetent to
execute the 2007 will and that the will was also the result of undue
influence.
Proponent of the 2007 will, the child of
Testatrix’s second marriage, appealed. Although the
court agreed with Proponent that there was insufficient evidence to
support the finding that Testatrix lacked testamentary capacity, the
court affirmed the trial court’s decision not to admit the 2007 will to
probate because there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate each of the
three main elements of undue influence as set forth in the leading
Supreme Court of Texas case of Rothermel v. Duncan, 369 S.W.2d
917 (Tex. 1963): (1) the existence and exertion of an influence (2) that
subverted or overpowered the mind of Testatrix at the time of will
execution (3) so that she executed a will that she would not otherwise
have executed but for the influence.
The court examined key evidence such as the fact
that the Proponent wrote the 2007 will without the intervention of a
lawyer or anyone else and that she had constant contact with Testatrix.
In fact, Proponent moved Testatrix into a nursing home, did not
notify other family members, and told the nursing home not to reveal to
family members that Testatrix was a resident. The
court noted that Testatrix was susceptible to undue influence as she was
in a weakened physical and mental condition in hospice care and had
occasional episodes of disorientation and confusion.
The court also pointed out the tremendous difference between the wills
with the 2007 will leaving virtually Testatrix’s entire estate to
Proponent while the earlier will made gifts to all of Testatrix’s
children and grandchildren as well as various charitable gifts.
Although none of these facts standing alone would support a
finding of undue influence, all of them taken together were enough to
show the trial court’s finding of undue influence was not against the
great weight of the evidence.
Moral: A trial court’s finding of undue
influence will be difficult to set aside and thus the proponent of the
contested will needs to put on the best possible evidence during the
trial.