Combination of Holdings Results in Intestacy
In re Estate of Cornes, 175 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet. h.), the lower court determined that a holographic will did not meet the requirements of a valid will but failed to specify the exact reason. [Note: Another part of the lower court’s opinion found that will was not in Testatrix’s handwriting but that holding was overturned on appeal.]
The appellate court conducted a review of the requirements of a valid will focusing its attention on the “sound mind” requirement of Texas Probate Code § 57. The court explained that Proponent had the burden of proving testamentary capacity and that to overturn the lower court’s finding, Proponent must establish that Testatrix had capacity as a matter of law. After reviewing the evidence, the court determined that there was insufficient evidence of her capacity as of the date of will execution and thus the trial court’s finding was upheld. The court pointed out that although witnesses were available who could have testified as to Testatrix’s capacity around the time of will execution, they had not done so.
The court’s holding had the effect of causing Testatrix’s estate to pass by intestacy because it is coupled with a holding that an earlier will was not subject to probate because the proponents were in default in waiting more than four years. Proponents filed a will for probate after four years had elapsed from the date of Testator’s death. Proponents explained that they were “not in default” in failing to present the will within the four year period under Texas Probate Code § 73(a) because they delayed probating their mother’s will “out of respect” for their step-father. They feared that their step-father would be hurt that their mother included an express provision in the will which provided that she “intentionally made no provision in this Will for my husband * * * and I direct that he shall take none of my property either under this Will or by the laws of intestacy.” Id. at 495. The lower court admitted the will to probate.
The appellate court determined that Proponents’ excuse was insufficient to justify a late probate. The court explained, “we have found no opinion [that] has recognized respect for potential heirs as an excuse for the devisees’ delay in presenting a will for probate.” Id. at 495.