Yost v. Fails, 534 S.W.3d 517 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.).
The jury determined that Testatrix signed her will
because of undue influence. The trial court granted the proponent of the
will a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court
reversed.
The court began its analysis by setting forth the
traditional elements of undue influence: “(1) an influence existed and
was exerted, (2) the exertion of the influence subverted or overpowered
the mind of the testator at the time she signed the will, and (3) the
testator would not have made the will but for the influence.” Yost
at 524. The court determined that the legal sufficiency of the evidence
supported the jury’s finding of undue influence. Facts the court
discussed included how Testatrix became dependent on the beneficiary of
her new will, the beneficiary became her agent under a power of attorney
and depleted Testatrix’s assets for his own purposes, and the
shenanigans that occurred during the preparation and execution of the
will.
Moral: An appellate court will carefully
examine the evidence to determine whether sufficient proof exists to
support a jury’s finding of undue influence.
The jury determined that Proponent did not probate
Testatrix’s will in good faith and with just cause because Proponent
exercised undue influence over Testatrix to get her to execute the will.
The trial court granted Proponent a judgment notwithstanding the verdict
thus entitling Proponent to recover his attorney’s fees from the estate
under Estates Code § 352.052(a). The appellate court reversed.
The court explained that the existence of good
faith is a question of fact for the jury. The court will uphold the jury
finding unless the evidence conclusively established Proponent’s good
faith. The court held that such evidence did not exist and thus the
trial court erred in disregarding the jury’s finding.
Moral: A jury’s finding
of lack of good faith in a will proponent’s attempt to probate a will is
difficult to set aside as conclusive evidence of good faith is needed to
do so.
The jury and the appellate court agreed that the
proponent of a will procured by undue influence tortiously interfered
with the inheritance rights of a beneficiary of a prior will. Despite
being decided three weeks after Kinsel v. Lindsey, the court did
not discuss the impact of this Texas Supreme Court opinion on the case.