Matter of Estate of Woods
20 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 17, 542 S.W.2d 845, 1976 Tex. LEXIS 251 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To set aside a will based on undue influence, a contestant must prove not only the opportunity to exert influence but also the actual exertion of that influence, its effective operation to overpower the testator's mind at the time of execution, and that the will would not have been executed but for such influence.
Facts:
- M. L. Woods, a widower without children, executed a will on August 7, 1964, when he was about 81 years old, leaving the majority of his property to Owen E. Rose and Beatrice Rose, their four children, and Susie Maurine Bratton.
- Owen and Beatrice Rose, and their family, lived on Woods' property and had helped care for him and his farming/ranching business since 1963; Woods' stepson, Robert Stephens, also lived in the same house.
- Woods was hard of hearing, had poor eyesight, and could not read or write anything but his name in 1964, and his physical condition continued to worsen by 1972.
- An earlier will, executed by Woods on March 21, 1962, left everything to his niece, Orville Lucille Brown, and Susie Maurine Bratton.
- Woods told Orville Lucille Brown's mother in 1962 that he wanted his property to stay in the family and would never change that will as long as he had his 'sound mind.'
- On May 16, 1972, Woods executed a codicil, prepared by a different attorney, which specifically excluded Susie Maurine Bratton as a beneficiary, leaving her only one dollar.
- Woods told Orville Lucille Brown's mother about three weeks before his death in 1973 that he had signed 'some papers' and 'never did know what I signed . I couldn’t read and I just signed what they told me to.'
- M. L. Woods died on May 8, 1973.
Procedural Posture:
- The 1964 will and 1972 codicil of M. L. Woods were admitted to probate by order of the County Court of Eastland County.
- Orville Lucille Brown, a niece and contestant, filed suit in the Eastland County Court to set aside the probate order.
- The County Court rendered a take nothing judgment against Orville Lucille Brown.
- Orville Lucille Brown (contestant) appealed the County Court's judgment to the District Court.
- The District Court, based on jury findings favorable to Orville Lucille Brown, set aside and canceled the County Court's order probating the will and codicil.
- The proponents (appellees in the District Court) appealed the District Court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
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 circumstantial evidence of a testator's advanced age, physical decline, and beneficiaries' opportunity to influence, without direct or circumstantial proof of the actual exertion of influence that subverted the testator's mind at the time of will or codicil execution, constitute sufficient evidence to set aside a will on grounds of undue influence or testamentary incapacity?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Daniel
No, circumstantial evidence of a testator's advanced age, physical decline, and beneficiaries' opportunity to influence, without direct or circumstantial proof of the actual exertion of influence that subverted the testator's mind at the time of will or codicil execution, is not sufficient evidence to set aside a will on grounds of undue influence or testamentary incapacity. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed that the contestant failed to meet the burden of proof for undue influence and testamentary incapacity. While the evidence showed that the beneficiaries (the Roses and Robert Stephens) had ample opportunity to influence M. L. Woods due to their close proximity and caretaking roles, there was no direct or circumstantial evidence indicating that any of them actively exerted influence, or that such influence overpowered Woods' mind at the specific moments he executed the 1964 will or the 1972 codicil. The court reiterated that merely showing an opportunity to influence is insufficient; there must be proof that influence was not only present but was actually exerted to subvert the testator's will at the time the testament was made. Woods' statement about signing papers without knowing what they were, made nine years after the will and one year after the codicil, did not constitute evidence of his mind being subverted at the time of execution of either instrument. Additionally, there was no evidence to support the jury's finding that Woods lacked testamentary capacity when he executed the 1972 codicil, as all testimony indicated he was of sound mind during that period.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the high standard for proving undue influence in Texas, emphasizing that mere opportunity to influence, even when combined with a testator's diminished physical or mental state, is insufficient. It protects testamentary freedom by requiring concrete evidence of active subversion of a testator's will at the moment of execution. Future cases will likely cite this decision to challenge attempts to overturn wills based on suspicion or inference rather than direct or strong circumstantial proof of manipulative action. The ruling also highlights the difficulty of proving testamentary incapacity, especially when no expert or lay testimony suggests a lack of sound mind at the relevant time.
