Merrick v. Helter, 500 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016, pet. denied).
Testator’s will expressly disinherited Daughter.
After the court admitted the will to probate, Daughter contested the
will claiming that Testator’s motive for excluding her violated public
policy thus making the will invalid. She claimed that Testator had
abused her sexually and that disinheriting her was his “vengeance” when
she confronted him about the abuse many decades later. Executor said
that these claims against Testator were unsubstantiated and brought only
in an attempt to obtain property from the estate. The probate court
dismissed Daughter’s claim without reaching the merits of the claim
because even if true, it would not provide her with a viable basis for
setting aside the will. Daughter appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. The court examined
Daughter’s claims that terms in a will may be unenforceable on public
policy grounds. For example (mine, not the court’s), if a testator
stated, “I leave Daughter $10,000 if you cut off my ex-wife’s right
hand,” such provision would not be enforceable. Agreeing, of course,
that Texas public policy condemns sexual abuse and related conduct, the
court explained that nothing in the will addressed this topic.
Daughter’s “challenge is grounded entirely in asserted conditions or
limitations that appear nowhere in the will’s text.” Merrick at
*3. The court also emphasized that Daughter had no right or entitlement
to an inheritance. A testator may disinherit an heir for any reason be
it just or unjust.
Moral: A will contestant attempting to set
aside a will or gift in the will on public policy grounds needs to point
to express terms of the will which violate public policy.