Garza v. Garza
390 S.W.2d 45 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will can only be set aside on grounds of undue influence if the contestant proves the existence and exertion of an influence that effectively overpowered the testator's mind, resulting in a will they would not have otherwise executed, and circumstantial evidence must be convincing and inconsistent with the absence of such influence.
Facts:
- Ramon G. Garza's wife, Teresa, died without a will in 1953.
- In 1955, Ramon and his three children, Daniel, Roberto, and Angela, executed a partition deed, conveying 75.89 acres to Daniel and Daniel conveying his remaining interest in Teresa's property to Ramon, Roberto, and Angela jointly.
- On August 5, 1959, Ramon G. Garza executed a will.
- Ramon, accompanied by his son Roberto and an interpreter, visited attorney E. G. Lloyd about a week or ten days before the will was signed to discuss its preparation, with Ramon clearly stating his desires and Roberto taking no part in discussions.
- On August 5, 1959, Ramon, Roberto, and the interpreter returned to execute the will, which was read and explained to Ramon by a clerk before signing.
- Ramon G. Garza died on April 29, 1963, at the age of 82, survived by his three children: Daniel, Roberto, and Angela.
- The will bequeathed Ramon's entire estate to Roberto and Angela, specifically stating that Daniel was not included because "provision has been previously made for him."
- For many years, Roberto and Angela lived with Ramon on his ranch, with Roberto helping manage it as Ramon's health declined, and Angela (unmarried) running the household, while Daniel lived separately with his own family.
Procedural Posture:
- Ramon G. Garza's will, executed on August 5, 1959, was admitted to probate on July 5, 1963.
- Daniel R. Garza (appellant), a son of the deceased, filed suit on October 4, 1963, in the trial court, seeking to cancel the probate order and set aside the will, alleging undue influence by his brother Roberto R. Garza and sister Angela R. Garza (proponents).
- The trial court granted the proponents' motion for an instructed verdict after Daniel R. Garza had presented his case and rested.
- The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against Daniel R. Garza.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the record contain sufficient evidence of probative force to raise an issue of fact that undue influence was exercised by Roberto R. Garza and/or Angela R. Garza in the execution of Ramon G. Garza's will?
Opinions:
Majority - Barrow, Justice.
No, the record does not contain sufficient evidence of probative force to raise an issue of fact that undue influence was exercised by Roberto R. Garza and/or Angela R. Garza in the execution of Ramon G. Garza's will. The Supreme Court in Rothermel v. Duncan established that to set aside a will for undue influence, the contestant must prove (1) the existence and exertion of an influence; (2) its effective operation to subvert or overpower the testator's mind at the time of execution; and (3) the execution of a will the maker would not have made otherwise. While circumstantial evidence can be considered, it must be "reasonably satisfactory and convincing" and "not equally consistent with the absence of the exercise of such influence," as a solemn testament should not be set aside on bare suspicion. In this case, there was no showing of a weak mind or will, with witnesses describing the testator as strong-willed. The attorney who drafted the will testified that the testator was very definite in his desires, and Roberto took no part in the discussions. The will itself noted prior provision for Daniel. Although Roberto and Angela lived with the testator and managed parts of his affairs, the court held that the exertion of undue influence cannot be inferred from opportunity alone; there must be direct or circumstantial testimony showing influence was exerted regarding the making of the testament itself, which was absent here. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the stringent evidentiary standard for proving undue influence in Texas, particularly when direct evidence is lacking. It clarifies that mere opportunity or an 'unnatural' disposition of property, when combined with a testator's advanced age and physical infirmity, are insufficient to establish undue influence without additional proof that the influence was actually exerted to subvert the testator's free will. This ruling sets a high bar for contestants, emphasizing the presumption of validity for properly executed wills and the need for compelling evidence that transcends mere suspicion or inference based on circumstantial factors alone.
