In re Estate of Redus, 321 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, no pet.).
Proponent One sought to probate Testator’s 2007 will naming Proponent
One as the sole beneficiary. Proponent Two claimed that the 2007 will
was invalid and sought to probate Testator’s 2005 will naming Proponent
Two as a primary beneficiary. The trial court determined that Proponent
Two lacked standing and dismissed Proponent Two’s action. Proponent Two
appealed.
The appellate court reversed. The court began its analysis by looking at
Probate Code § 10 which requires that a person must have an interest in
an estate to have standing. The court then turned to Probate Code §
3(r)’s definition of “interested person.” Even Proponent One agreed that
a beneficiary of a prior will has standing. However, Proponent One
asserted that Proponent Two failed to introduce important evidence at
the in-limine hearing such as the 2005 will itself, proof of the
elements necessary to probate a missing will, and evidence to overcome
the presumption of revocation that arises when the original cannot be
produced. The appellate court explained the Proponent One was
commingling the issues to be decided in an in-limine hearing with those
decided at a trial on the merits. To establish standing, it was
sufficient for Proponent Two to testify that he was a beneficiary of
Testator’s 2005 will, file a copy of the will, and present other
evidence of the will’s existence and that he was a named beneficiary
(e.g., testimony from the drafting attorney). Accordingly, Proponent Two
has standing.
Moral: The requirements to establish standing to contest a will or
probate a will are significantly less than the requirements to contest a
will successfully or to have the will admitted to probate.