Leatherwood v. Stephens
13 S.W.2d 726 (1929)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contest to a probated will is generally barred by a four-year statute of limitations, and this period cannot be extended by connecting one legal disability (such as coverture) to another, especially when a subsequent disability arises after the limitations period has already commenced against a devisee or prior heir.
Facts:
- Mrs. Mary E. Fogelman executed her will on December 13, 1899.
- At the time of execution, the will named Mrs. Sallie Beavers, Mrs. Retta Martin, and Mrs. Beck as devisees, in addition to five other beneficiaries.
- Mrs. Fogelman died on September 26, 1916.
- Her husband, Mason Fogelman, filed the will for probate on March 19, 1917.
- The will, as filed for probate, had ink poured over three sections, obliterating the names of Mrs. Beavers, Mrs. Martin, and Mrs. Beck.
- The county court admitted the will to probate in its mutilated condition on May 21, 1917.
- Mrs. Sallie Beavers died on September 16, 1918.
- Mrs. Beck (mother of intervener Dan Beck) died in December 1919.
- Mason Fogelman died before the will contest was filed.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 2, 1924, Ira Leatherwood and others (appellants), as children and heirs of Mrs. Sallie Beavers, instituted a suit in the county court of Kaufman County, Texas, to contest the validity of the will of Mary E. Fogelman, deceased, and to set aside its probate.
- A trial in the county court resulted in a judgment sustaining the will and its probate.
- Appellants applied to the district court for a writ of certiorari to review the county court proceeding, which was granted, and a transcript of the proceedings was filed in the district court.
- In the district court, appellants filed amended pleadings alleging that the will, as executed, named Mrs. Sallie Beavers, Mrs. Retta Martin, and Mrs. Beck as devisees, but their names were later blotted out, and prayed for the will to be established as originally executed.
- Appellees (Owen Stephens and others, as devisees or their heirs) pleaded the four-year statute of limitations as a defense.
- Original contestants filed a supplemental petition, alleging the coverture (status of being a married woman) of Mrs. Leatherwood and Mrs. Hambleton to defeat the limitation plea.
- On November 23, 1927, Dan Beck, alleging he was the sole heir of Mrs. Beck, intervened in the district court, adopting the pleadings of the original contestants.
- On November 23, 1927, Lela Moore, joined by her husband, I. P. Moore, also intervened, adopting the pleadings of the original contestants.
- The trial in the district court was before a jury.
- At the conclusion of the evidence, the court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the appellees (the proponents of the probated will).
- A judgment was entered on the instructed verdict, declaring the will as originally probated valid and confirming its probate.
- This was the second appeal of this case to the Court of Civil Appeals, following a prior remand from the same court (opinion published in 295 S.W. 236).
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 four-year statute of limitations bar a contest to a probated will when the challenge is filed more than four years after the will's probate, even if some contestants allege coverture or claim through devisees who died after the initial probate?
Opinions:
Majority - GALLAGHER, C. J.
Yes, the four-year statute of limitations bars a will contest when the challenge is filed more than four years after the will's probate, and legal disabilities like coverture do not extend the period if they are effectively connected to a prior disability or if the statute has already commenced running. The court first found the appellants' general assignment of error, concerning the instructed verdict, to be too abstract to warrant consideration as it failed to explain its applicability to the specific issues. Furthermore, the appellants' own amended petition alleged that the will was changed by blotting out the names of the devisees before it was filed for probate and admitted in its mutilated condition, which precluded their contention that the change occurred after it was exhibited for probate. The primary reason for affirming the instructed verdict, however, was the appellees' valid plea of the four-year statute of limitations (Article 5534 of the Revised Statutes). The will was probated on May 21, 1917, and the contest was not filed until July 2, 1924, more than seven years later. Regarding the original contestants (Ira Leatherwood and Rhoda Hambleton), who claimed through Mrs. Sallie Beavers (who died September 16, 1918), the court explained that if Mrs. Beavers was a widow at the time of probate, the statute began to run against her from the probate date and continued against her daughters despite their coverture at her death. If Mrs. Beavers was married at probate, the limitation period began for her daughters upon her death, and their coverture would not extend the period because "the period of limitation cannot be extended by connecting one disability with another" (R.S. art. 5644). Thus, Mrs. Leatherwood and Mrs. Hambleton were barred. Intervener Dan Beck, whose mother died in December 1919, filed his intervention in November 1927, nearly eight years after her death, with insufficient pleadings to defeat the limitation plea. Similarly, Intervener Lela Moore's pleadings were also inadequate. Therefore, none of the appellants alleged or showed facts sufficient to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the finality of probate proceedings when challenged beyond the statutory limitation period. It provides a clear application of the rule against 'tacking' disabilities, meaning that successive disabilities cannot indefinitely extend a statute of limitations once it has begun or if they are linked to a prior disability. The decision serves as a crucial reminder for law students about the strictness of procedural deadlines in litigation, especially for affirmative defenses like the statute of limitations, and the necessity of carefully crafted pleadings to overcome such defenses. It highlights how procedural deficiencies, such as abstract legal propositions or inconsistent allegations, can prevent substantive claims from being heard on their merits.
