in Re: Estate of Evelyn Marie Reno
443 S.W.3d 143, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 9619, 2009 WL 4877542 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will may be set aside due to undue influence if a contestant proves an influence was exerted that subverted or overpowered the testator's mind at the time of execution, causing the testator to execute an instrument they would not otherwise have executed but for such influence.
Facts:
- Evelyn Marie Reno died on February 11, 2008, at the age of eighty-one.
- Reno had three children from her first marriage (Donnie Freeman, Donald Wayne Brown, Bonnie Tappan) and one child from her second marriage (Jan LeGrand).
- Reno had previously drafted multiple wills and codicils (2001, 2002, 2004, 2005) that made specific bequests to all four children, grandchildren, and various charities.
- In July 2006, Freeman and Tappan filed a guardianship action seeking to have a guardian appointed over Reno, which upset Reno.
- In October 2006, Tappan sent a letter to Reno stating she and her children would no longer visit Reno due to accusations of stealing.
- From October 2006 until Reno's death in February 2008, LeGrand was Reno's primary visitor, support, and nonprofessional caregiver.
- LeGrand placed Reno in a nursing home, did not notify other family members of Reno's location, and instructed staff not to release information about her mother.
- LeGrand drafted a will dated April 20, 2007 ('2007 Will') for Reno, which left all of Reno's property exclusively to LeGrand.
Procedural Posture:
- After Evelyn Marie Reno's death, a holographic will dated December 19, 2001, and a codicil dated February 21, 2002, were admitted for probate.
- Jan LeGrand sought to set aside the order probating the 2001 Will and Codicil in the County Court at Law, Harrison County, Texas.
- Jan LeGrand also filed an application to probate a will dated April 20, 2007, in the same trial court.
- Donnie Freeman and Donald Wayne Brown alleged that Reno lacked testamentary capacity to execute the 2007 Will and that the 2007 Will was the product of undue influence.
- The County Court at Law (trial court) denied LeGrand’s application to set aside the 2001 Will and Codicil.
- The trial court held that Reno was incompetent to execute the 2007 Will.
- The trial court held that the 2007 Will was the product of undue influence.
- LeGrand appealed the trial court's findings to the Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana.
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 sufficient evidence exist to prove that Evelyn Marie Reno's 2007 Will was the product of undue influence, thus rendering it invalid?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Carter
Yes, sufficient evidence exists to prove that Evelyn Marie Reno's 2007 Will was the product of undue influence, rendering it invalid. The court applied the three-part test for undue influence established in Rothermel v. Duncan. First, the court found ample evidence of the 'existence and exertion of an influence' by LeGrand. LeGrand had exclusive access to Reno for months, concealed Reno's whereabouts from other family members, and personally drafted the 2007 Will, which was a significant deviation from Reno's prior wills and solely benefited LeGrand. The physical preparation of the will by LeGrand was considered 'extremely persuasive' evidence of influence. Second, regarding whether the influence 'subverted or overpowered the mind of the testator,' the court acknowledged that Reno was 80 years old, in declining physical health, resided in a nursing home under hospice care, and experienced occasional mental disorientation and confusion, making her susceptible to influence, despite testimony of her lucidity on the day of signing. Third, in assessing whether Reno 'would not otherwise have executed' the will, the court noted the 'unnatural disposition' in the 2007 Will, which entirely omitted beneficiaries (other children, grandchildren, and charities) named in all prior wills in favor of LeGrand. While acknowledging a testator's right to dispose of property as they wish and the animosity with other family members, the complete exclusion of others combined with LeGrand's preparation of the self-serving will cumulatively supported the trial court's finding of undue influence.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the Rothermel test for undue influence, particularly emphasizing that while direct evidence of subversion at the moment of execution is ideal, circumstantial evidence can be sufficient when circumstances cumulatively produce a reasonable belief of undue influence. It highlights that even if a testator has testamentary capacity, a will can still be invalidated due to undue influence, especially when the primary beneficiary drafts the will and has exclusive access to a dependent testator. The decision serves as a reminder that the preparation of a self-serving will by a primary beneficiary for a susceptible testator will be scrutinized, even if the testator appears competent at signing.
