Lawson v. Collins, No. 03-17-00003-CV, 2017 WL 4228728 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 20, 2017, no pet.).
The eleven children of the decedent had differing
opinions regarding the validity of their mother’s will with some
asserting that the will was valid while others claimed that the mother
lacked capacity or that she was subject to fraud or undue influence when
she executed the will. The children actively involved in the litigation
signed a Rule 11 Mediated Settlement Agreement. This Agreement provided
for binding arbitration if disputes under the Agreement later arose.
Disputes did arise and the arbitration concluded. One of the children
who was not previously involved with the litigation or settlement
agreement then filed suit to contest the will. After the court granted a
summary judgment against her, one of the children who agreed to the
settlement opposed confirmation of the award and was joined by her
unsuccessful sibling. The court rejected the opposition and signed an
order confirming the award and ordering that it be enforced according to
its terms. The child who initially agreed to the settlement appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. The court first
addressed the child’s claim that she was coerced by the mediator to
agree to the settlement. The court agreed that the trial court was not
in error for not allowing a hearsay affidavit in support of her coercion
claim. The court also agreed that it was permissible for the trial court
to exclude a hearsay medical report showing that the child lacked the
mental capacity to enter into the agreement. The court held that it did
not matter that she did not sign the settlement agreement because the
arbitration award is final once the arbitrator signs it; there is no
requirement that the parties sign it as well. The court also rejected a
multitude of other creative but ineffective arguments.
Moral: Once a litigant agrees to settle a
case, the litigant should not try to interfere with its later
enforcement of the settlement merely because of “settlement remorse.”
The trial court refused to admit testimony of a
handwriting expert that would show that a will was a forgery on the
basis that he was not timely designated as a testifying expert. The
appellate court rejected that claim that designation was not needed
because the hearing was on merits of the case; it was not a preliminary
hearing not on the merits where designation may not be a basis for
excluding an expert’s testimony.
Moral: A will contestant should timely
designate testifying experts.