in the Estate of Manuela Mesa Casas
Memorandum Opinion filed March 10, 2022 (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will cannot be set aside on the grounds of undue influence unless there is factually sufficient evidence that an influence was actually exerted, subverting the testator's mind, and that the will would not have been made but for that influence. Mere opportunity or susceptibility to influence, without proof of actual exertion and subversion of will, is insufficient.
Facts:
- On July 28, 2010, Manuela Casas executed a Last Will and Testament, dividing her estate among her eight living children, with specific devises to her daughter Concepcion, and asked Concepcion to keep it secret.
- In late 2011, after breaking her hip in June 2011, Manuela Casas began living at her daughter Rebecca Ayala's house, where Rebecca became Manuela’s primary caregiver for daily needs.
- Manuela engaged attorney Rosalind Curtis to change her will in October 2011, disinheriting two of her children, and further changed it with Curtis in 2013, continuing to disinherit some children and adding a grandson.
- In June 2012, Rebecca took Manuela to open a new bank account in Manuela’s name, designating Rebecca as a secondary joint owner, and Manuela later named Rebecca as her attorney-in-fact for medical and general powers of attorney in 2012 and 2013.
- In September 2014, Manuela executed a new will (the '2014 Will'), again prepared by attorney Curtis, which named Rebecca as the sole beneficiary of Manuela’s estate.
- After being hospitalized in December 2014, Manuela signed a power of attorney (prepared by Curtis) allowing Rebecca to sell Manuela's house, which Rebecca subsequently sold to a company owned by Rebecca's daughter.
- Manuela Casas died on October 12, 2016.
Procedural Posture:
- Manuela Casas died on October 12, 2016.
- On August 14, 2018, the probate court (Probate Court No. 3, Harris County, Texas) admitted Manuela's 2010 Will to probate on Concepcion’s application.
- On November 16, 2018, Rebecca Ayala filed a Contest to Probate of Will and Application for Probate of New Will and Issuance of Letters Testamentary, alleging the 2014 Will revoked the 2010 Will.
- Concepcion contested the 2014 Will on the ground of undue influence.
- After a bench trial, the probate court ruled for Concepcion, finding that Manuela signed the 2014 Will as a result of undue influence and refused to admit the 2014 Will to probate. The court also found Manuela’s primary language was Spanish and she had difficulty understanding spoken and written English.
- Rebecca Ayala appealed the probate court's judgment to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals.
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 factually sufficient evidence exist to support a trial court's finding that a daughter exerted undue influence over her mother, a testator with declining mental capacity, such that the mother's final will, which named the daughter as sole beneficiary, should be set aside?
Opinions:
Majority - Kevin Jewell
No, the trial court's finding that the 2014 Will was a product of undue influence is not supported by factually sufficient evidence. The court applied the three-element Rothermel test for undue influence, which requires showing (1) an influence existed and was exerted; (2) the exertion of that influence subverted or overpowered the testator's mind at the time the will was signed; and (3) the testator would not have made the will but for the influence. While the record showed Rebecca had an opportunity to influence Manuela (Manuela lived with Rebecca, depended on her for care, and her mental health was declining), mere opportunity or susceptibility alone is insufficient to prove undue influence. The court found scant evidence that Rebecca actually exerted an influence that subverted Manuela's mind. Although Concepcion presented circumstantial evidence, such as Rebecca's presence at the will signing and statements that only Rebecca loved and cared for Manuela, this was deemed "equally consistent with the absence of the exercise of such influence." Crucially, Manuela explicitly told her attorney, Rosalind Curtis, that she wanted to leave everything to Rebecca because Rebecca had been her primary caregiver, and it was affecting Rebecca financially, establishing a reasonable basis for the disposition. The court found no evidence of financial impropriety by Rebecca, that she "steered" Manuela to Curtis, or that she habitually controlled Manuela's daily life or prevented other family contact. Distinguishing this case from Yost v. Fails, the court concluded that the evidence presented amounted to "nothing more than a suspicion of wrongdoing" and was not of the "reasonably satisfactory and convincing character" required to set aside a will based on undue influence. Given the lack of sufficient evidence for the first two elements, the court did not need to analyze the third element.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the high evidentiary threshold required to prove undue influence in Texas, particularly when a caregiver is the beneficiary. It reinforces that while an opportunity to influence and the testator's susceptibility are relevant, direct or convincing circumstantial evidence of actual exertion of influence that subverts the testator's free will is paramount. The court's emphasis on the testator's stated rationale for the will's disposition, coupled with the absence of financial impropriety or active coercion, will serve as a critical guide for future undue influence challenges, making them exceedingly difficult to sustain without compelling evidence of active manipulation.
