Estate of Lee, 551 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2018, no pet.).
Beneficiary of a trust created in Testatrix’s will
which was subsequently amended by two codicils under which he does not
benefit attempted to contest the latter codicil. The trial court held
that Beneficiary lacked standing because even if the contest were
successful, he would not receive property under the earlier codicil.
Beneficiary appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. The court determined
that merely because Beneficiary was a beneficiary of a revoked
testamentary trust does not give him standing to contest the latter
codicil. First, Beneficiary is not an “interested person” under Estates
Code § 22.018(1) because he has no property right or claim against
Testatrix’s estate. Instead, he only has a potential right because he
would need to successfully contest both codicils to be entitled to
estate property. Second, Beneficiary does not have standing under case
law because his alleged pecuniary interest is too far removed.
The court also rejected Beneficiary’s claim that he
has standing because he and a beneficiary under the earlier codicil and
original will entered into an agreement under which Beneficiary agreed
to contest the latter codicil in exchange for 40% of what the other
beneficiary recovers. The trial court determined that this agreement was
invalid because the other beneficiary’s interest, if obtained, would be
controlled by a spendthrift provisions in both the will and earlier
codicil preventing her from conveying any interest in the property.
Thus, Beneficiary could not rely on this agreement to provide standing
to contest the latter codicil.
Moral: A party to a will contest must be
certain to have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the litigation
which is not too far removed. In other words, a successful contest
should put property in the contestant’s pocket.