Haisler v. Coburn, 2010 WL 2953372 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010, pet. denied).
Father died with a will leaving his entire estate to Step-Mother.
Daughter contested the will but later dismissed the contest after
receiving property under a family settlement agreement. Years later,
Daughter learned that Father’s will had been forged. Daughter then filed
an equitable bill of review to set aside the order admitting the will to
probate. The trial court refused and she appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. A bill of review is proper when there is
extrinsic fraud which prevents a party from fully litigating all of the
party’s rights or defenses. The court explained that in this case the
fraud was merely intrinsic, that is, “She was not kept from court; no
false promises of compromise were alleged to have been make; and she was
not denied knowledge of application to probate the will.”
Moral: Once a forged will is admitted to probate, it may be difficult to
have the order reversed even when there is clear evidence of forgery.
Father died with a will leaving his entire estate to Step-Mother.
Daughter contested the will but later dismissed the contest after
receiving property under a family settlement agreement. Years later,
Daughter learned that Father’s will had been forged. Daughter then
brought a claim against the forger and individuals who had prior
knowledge of the forgery for tortious interference with inheritance
rights. The trial court dismissed and she appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. The court explained that the statute of
limitations had run on Daughter’s cause of action. The court refused to
adopt a discovery rule stating that neither Probate Code § 93 nor Civil
Practice & Remedies Code § 16.003 provide for limitations to run based
on the date of discovery.
Moral: A claim for tortuous interference with inheritance rights must be
brought timely or it will be lost.