Estate of Matthews, 510 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, pet. denied).
Husband and Wife were married. Approximately two
months later, Husband committed suicide. Although Husband did not leave
Wife any property in his will, instead leaving his estate to his Father,
Wife claimed homestead rights. Originally, the dispute was resolved by a
Rule 11 Settlement agreement but the court later set it aside as Wife
was not in compliance with the agreement. Father then succeeded in
convincing the jury to void the marriage on the ground that Husband
lacked the capacity to consent to the marriage due to his physical and
mental health issues, especially given the fact that Wife was Husband’s
former in-home health aide.
The appellate court affirmed. The court first
explained that there was sufficient evidence to set aside the settlement
agreement because Wife intentionally made deceptive and fraudulent
promises to Father to induce him into signing the agreement.
The court next addressed Wife’s claim that Father
lacked standing to set aside the marriage because he was not an
interested person as Estates Code § 123.102 requires for a person to
have standing to set aside a marriage after one of the spouses has died.
Although Father brought the action in his capacity as the executor of
Husband’s will (a non-interested capacity under Estates Code § 22.018),
Wife failed to raise the issue timely and thus it was deemed waived.
The court next reviewed the evidence which showed
that Husband had multiple sclerosis, depression, post-traumatic stress
disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In addition,
Husband was a frequent abuser of marijuana and alcohol. Although there
was also evidence showing that Husband had capacity, the jury’s verdict
was supported by legally sufficient evidence and the jury’s
determination was not clearly wrong or manifestly unjust.
Moral: A person using the “bad spouse”
statute (Estates Code § 123.102) to annul a marriage after a spouse’s
death should bring the action in a capacity that clearly makes the
person qualify as an “interested person” to avoid having litigation
focused around procedural issues rather than the issue of whether the
person actually had capacity to enter into the marriage.