Lowery v. Saunders
666 S.W.2d 226, 1984 Tex. App. LEXIS 4864 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will is invalid and cannot be admitted to probate if the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity by failing to understand the nature and extent of her property or the natural objects of her bounty, or if the will was procured by undue influence that destroyed her free agency. A subsequent will executed without testamentary capacity or under undue influence cannot validly revoke a prior valid will.
Facts:
- Bessie Cooke Cato, an elderly woman in her nineties with no children, had heirs consisting of nephews, nieces, grand-nephews, and grand-nieces.
- On April 7, 1976, Bessie Cato executed a will (and a codicil on April 19, 1977) that appointed her grand-niece, Nancy Adele Saunders, and Nancy's husband, William Saunders, as co-independent executors, devising most of her property, including her San Antonio home and mineral interests, to Nancy Saunders, while her nephew, Albert A. Lowery, received no property.
- On April 19, 1978, Bessie Cato conveyed her San Antonio home to Nancy and William Saunders via a warranty deed, reserving a life estate for herself, and also signed a contractual agreement not to change the provisions of her 1976 will benefiting Nancy Saunders.
- Due to being indebted to a bank for $9,000, Bessie Cato agreed with the Saunderses to transfer her home to them and not change her will in exchange for $10,000 cash to pay off notes and a promise of an additional $5,000 in future care.
- On or about July 28, 1978, Bessie Cato initiated a lawsuit in district court seeking to set aside the April 19, 1978 agreement and warranty deed, falsely believing the Saunderses wanted to take her property.
- On June 18, 1979, Bessie Cato executed a new will, sponsored by her nephew Albert A. Lowery, which eliminated Nancy Saunders as a beneficiary and devised almost all of Bessie Cato's property to Albert A. Lowery, except for her San Antonio home and furnishings which were devised to Lowery's daughter.
- At the time she executed the 1979 will, Bessie Cato mistakenly believed she still owned her home, furniture, a small business, and stocks/bonds, all of which she had either conveyed away or sold prior to this date, and also incorrectly identified the number and relationships of her relatives.
- Albert A. Lowery had instructed the attorney who drafted the 1979 will, was present when it was executed, paid the psychiatrist who examined Bessie Cato, had frequent access to Bessie Cato's house, and often spoke on her behalf with her previous attorney.
Procedural Posture:
- Bessie Cooke Cato filed a petition in the district court of Bexar County seeking to set aside a warranty deed and contractual agreement she made with Nancy Adele Saunders and William Saunders.
- Following a jury trial, the district court entered a judgment on May 4, 1979, affirming the validity of the contractual agreement and warranty deed.
- On January 10, 1980, Nancy Adele Saunders and William Saunders (appellees) filed an application in probate court to probate Bessie Cooke Cato’s April 7, 1976 will and April 19, 1977 codicil.
- On January 17, 1980, Albert A. Lowery (appellant) filed his application to probate Bessie Cooke Cato’s June 18, 1979 will, simultaneously opposing the admission of the earlier will and codicil.
- Appellees opposed the admission of the June 18, 1979 will, alleging that Bessie Cooke Cato lacked testamentary capacity and was subjected to undue influence.
- The will contest was tried to the court without a jury.
- The trial court refused to admit the June 18, 1979 will to probate, ruling that Bessie Cooke Cato lacked testamentary capacity at the time of its execution and that Albert A. Lowery had exercised undue influence over her. The trial court admitted the April 7, 1976 will and April 19, 1977 codicil to probate.
- Albert A. Lowery appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Appeals of Texas.
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 a will executed by a testatrix, who, due to an impaired mental condition, did not understand the nature and extent of her property or the natural objects of her bounty, and who was unduly influenced by a beneficiary, validly revoke a prior will and dispose of her estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Cantu, Justice
No, a will executed by a testatrix who lacked testamentary capacity and was subject to undue influence does not validly revoke a prior will or dispose of her estate. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding both legal and factual sufficiency to support the conclusion that Bessie Cato lacked testamentary capacity and was unduly influenced when she executed the June 18, 1979 will. The court first addressed the issue of testamentary capacity, applying the established legal standard which requires a testatrix to understand the business she is engaged in, the effect of her act, the general nature and extent of her property, and to know her next of kin and the natural objects of her bounty. Despite testimony from the drafting attorney and a psychiatrist who believed Bessie Cato was competent, conflicting evidence showed that she was unaware she had conveyed her home and furniture, believed she owned a business and stocks she no longer possessed, and misidentified her relatives. The trial court, acting as the trier of fact in a non-jury trial, was entitled to weigh this conflicting evidence, particularly her prior incoherent court testimony and erroneous declarations, to conclude she lacked the requisite mental ability. The court held that this evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's findings of lack of testamentary capacity. Although the finding of lack of testamentary capacity would alone invalidate the 1979 will, the court also considered the undue influence claim. Undue influence is defined as dominion acquired by one person over the mind of another that prevents the latter from exercising free discretion and compels them to act against their will. The court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding of undue influence by Albert A. Lowery. This evidence included Lowery's involvement in instructing the drafting attorney, his presence during the will's execution, his payment of the psychiatrist, and Bessie Cato's impaired mental condition and false beliefs about the Saunderses. The court emphasized that evidence of impaired mentality, even if not amounting to full testamentary incapacity, may afford an opportunity for the exercise of undue influence. When considering all circumstances together, the evidence produced a reasonable belief that undue influence was exerted. Finally, the court concluded that since the June 18, 1979 will was correctly denied probate due to lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, all its portions, including any revoking provision, necessarily failed. A subsequent instrument executed without the requisite testamentary capacity or under undue influence cannot validly revoke a prior valid will. Therefore, Bessie Cato's April 7, 1976 will and April 19, 1977 codicil remained valid and were properly admitted to probate. The court also upheld the admission of Bessie Cato's prior court testimony as relevant to her state of mind and testamentary capacity, and found no reversible error in the exclusion of appellant's cumulative testimony under the Dead Man's Statute.
Analysis:
This case serves as a critical precedent emphasizing the importance of both testamentary capacity and the absence of undue influence for a will's validity, particularly for elderly or vulnerable testators. It demonstrates that courts will scrutinize circumstantial evidence, even against professional testimony, to determine a testator's true understanding of their estate and beneficiaries. The ruling further clarifies that a revoking clause within an invalid will is itself invalid, thus ensuring that prior, properly executed wills are not inadvertently nullified. This outcome significantly impacts estate planning, requiring attorneys to thoroughly document a testator's mental state and ensure genuine free will, especially when significant changes in disposition occur or potential influencers are present.
