In re Estate of Graham, 69 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.).
Testator executed a will naming two of his nieces and nephews as the
primary beneficiaries. Testator’s seven other nieces and nephews
contested the will on several grounds including failure to comply with
the formalities of a valid will. The trial court determined that the
will met the requirements of Probate Code § 59. Contestants appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. Although the self-proving affidavit was
not in the form provided in Probate Code § 59, it was subscribed and
acknowledged by the testator and subscribed and sworn to by the
witnesses and thus it was in substantial compliance. The self-proving
affidavit thus acted as prima facie evidence of the will’s proper
execution and the contestants presented no evidence to rebut the
affidavit.
Moral: The self-proving affidavit should track the language provided in
Probate Code § 59 to avoid claims the affidavit is not in substantial
compliance with the statutory form.
In re Estate of Graham, 69 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.).
Testator executed a will naming two of his nieces and nephews as the
primary beneficiaries. Testator’s seven other nieces and nephews
contested the will on several grounds including lack of testamentary
capacity. The trial court determined that Testator had testamentary
capacity and the contestants appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. The court reviewed the extensive evidence
the will proponents submitted and held that it was sufficient to support
the trial court’s grant of a summary judgment. The court explained that
the contestants did not submit any evidence raising a fact issue
regarding the testator’s capacity to execute the will.
Moral: A person contesting a will on the basis of lack of testamentary
capacity must present evidence to support the allegation.
In re Estate of Graham, 69 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.).
Testator executed a will naming two of his nieces and nephews as the
primary beneficiaries. Testator’s seven other nieces and nephews
contested the will on several grounds including lack of testamentary
intent. The trial court held that Testator executed the will with
testamentary intent. The contestants appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. The court noted that the instrument was
called a will and disposed of Testator’s property. Testator had
discussed the will with others and handwrote the document before having
another person type it for him. This evidence was sufficient to support
the trial court’s grant of summary judgment especially in light of the
contestants’ failure to present any evidence to negate the existence of
testamentary intent.
Moral: A person contesting a will on the basis of lack of testamentary
intent must present evidence to support the allegation.
In re Estate of Graham, 69 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.).
Testator executed a will naming two of his nieces and nephews as the
primary beneficiaries. Testator’s seven other nieces and nephews
contested the will on several grounds including mistake. The appellate
court affirmed the trial court’s grant of a summary judgment that
Testator did not execute the will by mistake because the contestants
failed to present any evidence regarding mistake.
Moral: A person contesting a will on the basis mistake must present
evidence to support the allegation.
In re Estate of Graham, 69 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.).
Testator executed a will naming two of his nieces and nephews as the
primary beneficiaries. Testator’s seven other nieces and nephews
contested the will on several grounds including that Testator executed
the will while under being subjected to undue influence. The appellate
court affirmed the trial court’s grant of a summary judgment that
Testator did not execute the will under undue influence. The court
examined the family situation and facts surrounding the execution of the
will and found that there was no evidence to support the contestant’s
allegation of undue influence.
Moral: A person contesting a will on the basis of undue influence must
present evidence beyond mere surmise, opportunity, or suspicion.