Will Contest Attorney in McKinney, TX for Threatened Inheritances and Executor Disputes

The recognized grounds are lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, forgery, and improper execution — and each has a definition the evidence has to meet. Improper execution is measured against Texas Estates Code § 251.051: a will must be in writing, signed by the testator or by another person in the testator's presence and at the testator's direction, and attested by two or more credible witnesses at least 14 years of age who subscribe their names in the testator's presence. Capacity is measured at the moment of signing — § 256.152(a)(2)(B) requires proof that the testator was of sound mind when the will was executed — so later decline does not by itself invalidate an earlier will, and a diagnosis alone does not establish incapacity. Undue influence is the ground most often misunderstood. Under the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Rothermel v. Duncan, 369 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. 1963), a contestant must prove the existence and exertion of an influence, that it subverted or overpowered the testator's mind at the time the instrument was executed, and that the testator would not have executed that instrument but for the influence. Opportunity, or even a suspicious result, is not enough standing alone — the free agency of the testator must have been destroyed — though the elements may be proved by circumstantial evidence considered together rather than in isolation. Who may sue is defined by § 22.018: an interested person is an heir, devisee, spouse, creditor, or anyone else having a property right in or claim against the estate. The deadline is § 256.204(a): suit no later than the second anniversary of the date the will was admitted to probate, except that a contest based on forgery or other fraud may be brought within two years after the fraud is discovered, and § 256.204(b) gives a person who was incapacitated two years after the disabilities are removed.

Yes, and the exposure is more concrete than most executors realize. Texas Estates Code § 351.101 sets the standard: a personal representative shall take care of estate property as a prudent person would take of that person's own property, and must keep any estate buildings in good repair absent extraordinary casualty or a court order. Falling below that line invites removal, and some grounds require no advance notice at all. Under § 361.051 the court may remove a representative on its own motion and without notice for failing to return an inventory and list of claims before the 91st day after qualifying unless that deadline was extended by court order, for failing to give a required new bond, or for having misapplied, embezzled, or removed estate property from the state. With notice, § 361.052(a) adds failure to return a required account, failure to obey a proper order of the court, gross misconduct or mismanagement in the performance of the representative's duties, and failure to make a final settlement by the third anniversary of the date letters were granted. Beneficiaries also have an information right that catches executors who go quiet: under § 404.001(a), at any time after 15 months from the date letters were first issued, any interested person may demand an accounting from an independent executor — sworn and itemized down to the property received, its disposition, the debts paid, the debts still owing, and what remains — and § 404.001(b) allows a court action to compel it if the executor does not comply within 60 days of the demand. The same statutes protect a careful executor: one who documents the estate and accounts on time is usually on firm ground, and reasonable attorney's fees necessarily incurred in the administration are an estate expense under § 352.051 rather than a personal one. We represent both sides of these disputes — beneficiaries pursuing an executor, and executors defending decisions made in good faith.

Often yes, and Texas law is more forgiving here than the clause itself sounds. A no-contest or in terrorem clause says a beneficiary who challenges the will forfeits whatever the will gave them. Texas Estates Code § 254.005(a) makes such a provision enforceable unless, in a court action determining whether the forfeiture clause should be enforced, the person who brought the action establishes by a preponderance of the evidence both that just cause existed for bringing the action and that the action was brought and maintained in good faith. That is a genuine safe harbor: a beneficiary with a well-founded reason to question a will does not automatically lose an inheritance for asking. It is not a free pass either — a challenge filed without just cause, or pursued in bad faith, triggers the forfeiture exactly as written. Section 254.005(b) preserves something separate and frequently decisive: the section does not repeal any law recognizing that forfeiture clauses generally will not be construed to prevent a beneficiary from seeking to compel a fiduciary to perform the fiduciary's duties, from seeking redress against a fiduciary for a breach of those duties, or from seeking a judicial construction of a will or trust. In other words, insisting that an executor do the job or account for what has been done is usually not a contest at all. Because the outcome turns on the strength of the underlying claim, this is precisely the question to bring to a case review before anything is filed.

Some probate litigation matters may be reviewed for contingency, but it depends on the strength of the claim, the assets actually recoverable, the evidence, and the likely cost of litigation. Other matters are hourly or structured by stage, and executor defense is typically hourly. Contested estates at WG Law are led by Therese Gutierrez. We start with a free probate case review, so you get a straight assessment of the claim and the fee structure that fits it before you commit to anything.