Carpenter v. Tinney
1967 Tex. App. LEXIS 2571, 420 S.W.2d 241 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will cannot be set aside or reformed due to a testator's mistake of fact that was not induced by fraud or undue influence; furthermore, undue influence is not presumed merely from opportunity, requiring tangible proof of its active exertion to subvert the testator's mind.
Facts:
- Frankie Tinney and W. I. Tinney were married stock farmers who jointly owned approximately 400 acres of land and cattle.
- On May 8, 1958, while her husband was still alive, Frankie Tinney executed a will bequeathing $5 each to her husband, W. I. Tinney, and to two of her four children, Cora Carpenter and Clifton Tinney.
- Frankie Tinney left all her residuary estate to her other two sons, Dor Tinney and Milton Tinney, appointing Dor as the independent executor.
- Frankie Tinney told a neighbor, both at the time of making her will and subsequently, that she believed her husband had made a will leaving his property to Cora and Clifton, and she wanted to 'equalize distribution' by leaving her property to Dor and Milton.
- It was factually untrue that W. I. Tinney had left his property to only two of their children, meaning Frankie Tinney's belief was mistaken.
- W. I. Tinney died in February 1959.
- After her husband's death, Frankie Tinney filed an application to probate her husband’s “lost” will, under which she claimed to be the sole beneficiary (this application was later denied by a court in 1963).
- Frankie Tinney died in early 1961 with her will of May 8, 1958, unchanged.
Procedural Posture:
- Cora (Tinney) Carpenter, joined by her husband, filed a will contest in the County Court of San Saba County, naming her three brothers (including Dor Tinney individually and as executor) as defendants.
- The county court held against the contestants, affirming the will.
- Contestants (Cora Carpenter et al.) appealed the county court's decision to the district court.
- The district court entered an adverse judgment against the contestants on November 11, 1966.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a testator's mistake of fact, not induced by fraud or undue influence, constitute grounds to set aside or reform a will? 2. Did the trial court err in refusing to submit an issue on undue influence where contestants presented no tangible evidence of actual exertion of influence? 3. Is a deposition taken and used without objection in a county court probate contest admissible in a subsequent de novo trial in district court without showing the witness is physically unable to testify?
Opinions:
Majority - O’Quinn, Justice
No, a will cannot be set aside or reformed simply because the testatrix made it under a mistake of fact not induced by fraud or undue influence. The court held that the law generally does not permit courts to vary, modify, or reform the terms of a will, even due to a testator's mistake of fact or law, unless that mistake was the result of fraud or undue influence. The court cited 57 Am.Jur., Wills, sec. 375, and precedent like Holmes v. Campbell College, emphasizing that allowing such a challenge would be an impermissible reformation of the will. The court noted that Frankie Tinney had ample opportunity, over the two years following her husband's death, to correct her mistaken belief about his will's disposition, but she did not change her will. Furthermore, her actions in attempting to probate her husband's 'lost' will demonstrated at least a different understanding of his property disposition. The court concluded that what the maker of the will actually did, rather than what she might have meant or failed to do, must be given effect in the absence of fraud or undue influence. No, the trial court correctly refused to submit an issue on undue influence because the contestants failed to meet their burden of proving its elements. The court reiterated the three-element test for undue influence established in Rothermel v. Duncan: (1) existence and exertion of influence, (2) effective operation of the influence to subvert the testator's mind at execution, and (3) execution of a will the maker would not have executed but for the influence. The court found no tangible evidence that Dor or Milton Tinney exerted any influence over their mother. While Milton lived with his parents and helped with farm work, the court emphasized that opportunity alone does not infer undue influence; actual exertion must be shown. The evidence indicated Frankie Tinney was an independent and strong-willed woman who took steps to ensure her will's privacy (having it mailed to a neighbor to avoid husband's interception) and later refused counsel's suggestion to make a new will. Milton was not present when instructions were given or when the will was signed, and there was no evidence he knew of its contents. No, the trial court did not err in admitting the deposition of Dr. G. L. Gray without a predicate showing the witness was unable to testify. The deposition was taken by agreement and used without objection in the county court, which was the initial stage of the will contest. The court explained that an appeal to the district court for a de novo trial in a probate contest is considered a continuation of the original suit, not a new lawsuit. Therefore, under Rule 213 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and precedent like Gray v. Bird, a deposition properly taken and used in the initial court is admissible in the district court without needing to re-establish the witness's unavailability.
Analysis:
This case significantly strengthens the stability of wills against challenges based on a testator's internal mistaken beliefs, clearly stating that courts will not reform or invalidate a will simply because the testator was factually mistaken, unless there's evidence of fraud or undue influence. It also reinforces the stringent burden on will contestants to prove actual undue influence, beyond mere opportunity, underscoring the high threshold for overturning a will. The procedural ruling on deposition admissibility clarifies evidentiary rules in continuous probate proceedings, which is crucial for trial preparation and appellate strategy in such cases.
