In re Estate of Lynch, 350 S.W.3d 130 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. denied)
Unsuccessful will proponent incurred over $600,000 in reasonable and necessary attorney fees. However, the jury found that she did not act in good faith and with just cause and thus the trial court declined to award those fees under Probate Code § 243. The appellate court held that merely because fees are deemed reasonable and necessary does not mean the contestant pursued the action in good faith or with just cause.
Moral: A jury finding that the attorney fees of an unsuccessful will proponent are reasonable does not necessarily mean they were incurred in good faith or with just cause.
.
The jury found that the testator executed his will at a time when he lacked testamentary capacity and that he was simultaneously unduly influenced. The proponent of the will asserted that these findings create an irreconcilable conflict because only a person who has testamentary capacity can be subject to undue influence.
The appellate court examined the leading Texas cases. The court acknowledged that the cases recognize that a finding of undue influence “implies” that the testator had testamentary capacity. However, the cases do not hold that a finding of undue influence “requires” the existence of testamentary capacity. The court concluded that “testamentary capacity and undue influence are not necessarily mutually exclusive; in fact, one (incapacity) may be a factor in the existence of the other (undue influence).”
Moral: A will may be simultaneously contested on grounds of lack of capacity and undue influence.