Watson v. Dingler
831 S.W.2d 834, 1992 WL 68642 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will may be set aside on the grounds of undue influence if the contestant proves that an influence was exerted, it effectively subverted the testator's mind at the time of execution, and the testator would not have executed the will but for that influence.
Facts:
- Charles Junior Dingier (decedent) had four children, including Charlene Dingier Watson (appellant) and Donna Dingier (appellee), and his divorced ex-wife, Susan Lewis Dingier, lived with him and provided care for most of the last ten years.
- In January 1989, decedent was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, leading to a severe decline in his physical and mental health, requiring constant care, causing him to become forgetful, confused, depressed, paralyzed on his right side, and limited to communicating by nodding and eye movements.
- On August 28, 1989, decedent executed a Will that left significant property to both Susan and Charlene, and $10 each to his other three children.
- On October 18, 1989, Susan moved out after an argument with decedent, and Charlene moved in to provide care for him.
- On October 19, 1989, Charlene took the decedent to an attorney, and on October 20, 1989, a new Will was executed, leaving almost everything to Charlene and only $10 to his other three children.
- On October 27, 1989, decedent was hospitalized and doctors informed Charlene and Lila Fowler (decedent's sister) that he had only three or four days to live. The next day, Charlene secured decedent's signature on a document giving her check-writing authority over his $261,000 in bank accounts; a notary observed decedent's communication was limited to nodding and blinking.
- Lila Fowler testified that Charlene admitted to staying up all night, convincing the decedent to change his Will, stating 'it took a lot to do' but she managed it. Decedent passed away the following morning.
Procedural Posture:
- Five days after Charles Junior Dingier's death, Charlene Dingier Watson filed an application to probate the October 20, 1989 Will in the trial court.
- Susan Lewis Dingier, Richard Dingier, Russell Dingier, and Donna Dingier jointly filed a contest to the application, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, and requesting that the August 1989 Will be admitted or, alternatively, that decedent be declared to have died intestate.
- On May 10, 1990, First Interstate Bank of Texas filed a separate contest to Charlene's appointment as executrix, alleging fraud and misappropriation.
- The trial court concluded that the October 20, 1989 Will was executed as a result of Charlene Dingier Watson's undue influence, declared it void, and refused to admit it to probate.
- Charlene Dingier Watson (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the court of appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the finding of unjust disposition and undue influence.
- Donna Dingier (appellee) filed a cross-appeal, alleging the trial court erred in failing to rule on Susan Lewis Dingier's implicit application to probate the August 1989 Will.
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 support a trial court's finding that a will was the product of undue influence when the testator was gravely ill, highly dependent, and the primary beneficiary facilitated the will change and admitted to pressuring the testator?
Opinions:
Majority - Robertson, Justice
Yes, sufficient evidence exists to support the trial court's finding that the October 1989 Will was the product of undue influence. The court found that the decedent's extreme physical and mental debilitation from terminal brain cancer made him highly susceptible to influence. Charlene's actions, such as moving in immediately after Susan left, taking the decedent to an attorney the very next day to execute a new will that overwhelmingly favored her, preventing Susan from visiting, and obtaining control over the decedent's bank accounts days before his death while his communication was severely limited, were all considered. Crucially, the testimony of Lila Fowler, decedent's sister, recounting Charlene's admission that she stayed up all night to convince the decedent to change his will and that 'it took a lot to do,' served as direct evidence of exertion and effective operation of influence. The court concluded that this circumstantial and direct evidence sufficiently proved the three elements of undue influence, resulting in a disposition the decedent would not have otherwise made.
Analysis:
This case highlights the importance of circumstantial evidence in proving undue influence, especially when the testator is in a weakened state. It provides a robust application of the Rothermel v. Duncan test, emphasizing that courts will scrutinize wills made under suspicious circumstances where a dependent testator makes an unnatural disposition favoring a caregiver who has recently gained exclusive access. The case reinforces that the credibility of witnesses and the cumulative effect of a 'course of dealings and circumstances' are critical for the trial court to assess, and appellate courts will defer to those findings if supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence.
