Wilson Whitaker Rynell

Experienced Lawyers

info@wwrlegal.com

a blue and orange check mark with the letter w on it as the Wilson Whitaker Rynell Logo
972-248-8080 DALLAS
713-830-2207 HOUSTON
512-691-4100 AUSTIN
wilson whitaker rynell attorneys and counselors at law logo
972-248-8080 DALLAS
713-830-2207 HOUSTON
512-691-4100 AUSTIN

Dallas Contested Will Attorneys

The Texas Estates Code provides that a person interested in an estate may contest a Will. An interested person is defined as a heir, devisee, spouse, creditor, or any other personal who has a property right in or a claim against an estate.

Grounds For Contesting A Will In Texas

Who Can Contest A Will?

The only ones that have what is called "standing" have the ability to contest a will. In most cases, heirs and beneficiaries have standing.

 

  1. Heirs are the ones that would receive less under the last will and testaments than they would have if no will were present. If a man creates a will and leaves behind everything to a friend, his spouse and children can contest the will because if the will is not valid, they will get the estate; and
  2. Beneficiaries are the ones that would receive less under the purported will than they would have under a prior last will and testament. 


No Contest Clauses

 In terrorem or forfeiture clauses are intended to dissuade beneficiaries of a will or trust from filing for litigation, especially family, that might defeat the plan designed by the grantor, to make gifts conditional on the beneficiaries to not challenge the validity of the will. The courts have enforced in terrorem clauses only when the grantor's wishes are questioned and challenged.

A provision in a will that may cause a forfeiture is enforceable unless a court action determines whether or not the clause should be enforced. Evidence must be provided to ensure:



  1. Just cause existed for bringing the action;
  2. The action was brought and maintained in good faith.

Tex. Estates Code Ann. §254.005.


Even though there is a lot undefined regarding what is considered in good faith, it has been upheld that the filing of a suit to determine the testator's intent under a will is not a suit intended to dispute the validity of the will.

Texas courts have addressed many types of lawsuits in terrorem clauses to determine the purpose of the suit and whether it challenges the will. The conclusion was, suits as followed don't trigger forfeitures: 1) to recover an interest in the devised property; 2) to compel an executor to perform duties; 3) to ascertain a beneficiary's interest under a will; 4) compel the probate of a will; 5) to recover damages for conversion of estate assets; 6) to construe a will's provisions; 7) to request an estate accounting or distribution; 8) to contest a deed conveying a beneficiary's interest; 9) to determine that effect of a settlement; 10) to challenge an executor appointment; 11) to seek redress from executors who breach fiduciary duties, and 12) presenting testimony in a will contest brought by other beneficiaries. 


Slayer Prohibition

The Texas law doesn't have a specific statute to handle slayers in the estate context, except for parents that kill their children. A statute of such would be considered unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 21 of the Texas Constitution states, "no convections shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture of estate," which prevents a murderer from inheritance. Davis v. Laning, 19 S.W. 846 (Tex. 1892). 

In situations where the beneficiary killed the insured, the court issued a constructive trust on the proceeds. A constructive trust is a "creature of equity" destinated to correct an injustice. Also, equity will impress a constructive trust on assets to prevent a murderer from profiting from his victim's will. Texas courts have jurisdiction in actions to impose a constructive trust. 

 

 


Estate Planning Resources & Services

Need any help?

Getting in touch is easy.  Use the form below and request a free consultation today.
Contact Us
a blue and orange check mark with the letter w on it for Wilson Legal Group Logo

Frequently Asked Questions

Undue Influence

If it is proven that a will was not written voluntarily by the testator, it may not be admitted to probate. 

Undue influence is defined as the dominion acquired by a person's mind over another that prevents the latter from exhausting their discretion. This destroys their free agency and may compel them to do something against their wishes due to fear, the desire for peace, or feelings of not resisting. The process manipulates the trust, fears, dependency, and vulnerabilities of someone else for personal gain. Undue influence is a species of fraud. 

The elements of undue influence in Texas include:


  1. The existence and exertion of an influence;
  2. The effective operation of such influence that subverts or overpowers the mind of the maker of the document at the time of execution of the document; and
  3. The execution of the document, which the maker thereof would not have executed but for such influence. 


Texas Supreme Court noted, "every case of undue influence must be decided on its own peculiar facts." The factors considered by the court are as follows:



  1. The circumstances surrounding the execution of the instrument;
  2. The relationship between the grantor and the grantee;
  3. The motive, character, and conduct of the person's benefited by the instrument;
  4. The participation by the beneficiary in the preparation or execution of the instrument;
  5. The words and acts of the parties;
  6. The interest in and opportunity for the exercise of undue influence;
  7. The physical and mental condition of the grantor at the time of the instrument's execution, including the extent to which she was dependent upon and subject to the control of the grantee; and
  8. The improvidence of the transaction by reason of unjust, unreasonable, or unnatural disposition of the property.

Evidence is mandatory to show that undue influence is present. If you find yourself believing your inheritance was hijacked because of undue influence, or you have been unfairly accused of undue influence, contact a lawyer with experience evaluating such claims. 


Mental Capacity

The signer of a will, trust, deed, or beneficiary designation is required to be of solid mental capacity to comprehend what they are doing. Texas mandates that the person signing the will to: 


  1. Understand the effect of making the document and the general nature and extent of their property;
  2. Know their next of kin and natural objects of their bounty; and
  3. Have sufficient memory to assimilate the elements of executing a document, to hold those elements long enough to perceive their obvious relation to each other, and to form a reasonable judgment as to them.


Evidence of the testator's state of mind at times other than the date the will was signed may be considered in determining the testator's mental capacity.

Evidence relevant to the consideration may include:



  • Dementia, including Alzheimer's
  • Stroke
  • Drug use
  • Brain tumors
  • Memory loss
  • Severe depression
  • Intense pain
  • Bipolar disorder
  • Schizophrenia
  • Cerebrovascular disease
  • Atherosclerotic heart disease
  • Hardening of the arteries
  • Impaired executive function

As a general rule, the question is posed whether someone, at the time of execution, knows or understands the nature and consequences of their actions when the court reviews the mental capacity of said individual. Medical records and expert testimony may be used as evidence if need be. 


Revocation

The so-called "presumption of continuity" arises when a will has been executed with proper formalities and has no suspicious circumstances in a suitable location and a rebuttable presumption that it hasn't been revoked. The burden then shifts to the contestant to introduce evidence of revocation. If able to do so, the presumption of continuity vanishes, and the responsibility of evidence goes back on the proponent. However, verbal testimony from the testator will suffice if it is proven a document is present stating the revoking of a prior will to rebut the presumption of the continuity of the will.

For revocation to be established, the testator must prove they were of sound mind when executing the instrument to revoke the original will. Overall, to revoke a will, a new will expressing the revocation clause must be implemented. However, if a later will states the complete disposition of the testator's property, it revokes all previous wills by implication. Ultimately the question of revocation is determined by the factfinder. 


Probating A Copy Of A Will

The courts in Texas do not require that the proponent of a will be provided. However, a copy isn't treated the same as an original. In addition, a copy doesn't suffice due to the possibility of alteration or the fact that the testator may have destroyed it on purpose. 

If the original cannot be found, it's presumed the testator destroyed it for revoking purposes. The proponent has the opportunity to use evidence if it is believed the will was fraudulently destroyed. If it can be proven that the decedent had clear intentions with his will, it can be used as evidence contrary to the presumption. 

Texas Estates Code Section 256. 156 sets for the requirement for a written will that can't be produced in court:


(a) A will that cannot be produced in court must be provided in Section 256. 153 for an attested will or Section 256. 154 for a holographic will, as applicable. The same amount and character of testimony are required to prove that the will not be produced in court is required to confirm a will produced in court.

(b) In addition to the proof required by Subsection (a):

  1. The cause of the nonproduction of a will not be produced in court must be proved, which must be sufficient to satisfy the court that the will cannot by any reasonable diligence be produced; and
  2. The contents of the will must be substantially proved by the testimony of a credible witness who has read either the original or a copy of the will, has heard the will read, or can identify a copy of the will. 



This allows a copy of a will, as well as a will that cannot be produced, to be probated. However, it won't be easy because it requires the testimony of a disinterested witness who can credibly recite the material contents of a lost will. Moreover, the statutory requirements for substantial proof of the contents of the lost will not have been satisfied as long as the court is left in confusion on the provisions of the will. 

Overall, when a written will is unproduced and in possession of the testator, the failure to produce the will after the testator's death creates a question of whether the testator destroyed the will with the intention to revoke it. This then poses a burden on the proponent to prove the contrary. 


CLIENT MATTERS


5,000+


YEARS OF SERVICE

 25+

Award Winning

Recognized in the legal industry as dedicated board-certified lawyers and Rising Stars.

Expert Team

Your project will be handled by legal experts every time. You will have the most experienced attorneys working for you. 

Quality Representation

You’ll find the support you need to ensure that things run smoothly. We’re here to help with all your legal needs.

Meet Our Team

View All
A person is holding a cell phone in front of a book titled artificial intelligence
By John Wilson February 19, 2025
Copyright and Translated Content: Who Owns the Creative Rights? Understanding Copyright Law and Translation Copyright law protects creative work and bestows sole authority over the work upon the creators. For example, the owner of the work of a novel has the right over the work under the concept of the right under the copyright. Courts have found that “the degree of protection afforded by the copyright is measured by what is actually copyrightable in the publication and not by the entire publication.” See, e.g., Dorsey v. Old Sur. Life Ins. Co., 98 F.2d 872, 873 (10th Cir. 1938) (emphasis added). For translations, the situation is not very clear. Translations involve creative judgments over word translation and not the translation of mere words. Hence the knowledge about the applicability of the concept of the right over the work is essential for establishing the right over the work. For example, a Court in the Northern District of California stated that: “ the determinative question is whether Plaintiff holds a valid copyright. ” Signo Trading Intern. Ltd. v. Gordon, 535 F. Supp. 362, 363 (N.D. Cal. 1981). The Signo Trading Court dismissed Plaintiff’s infringement claims because plaintiff did not have a valid copyright as a matter of law in the translations and transliterations at issue because they lacked the “requisite originality.” Id. at 365. Can Translation Be Considered a Creative Process? The Practice of Translating Translation goes beyond the replacement of one word by the equivalent word from the source text. Translating literary work, poetry, and fiction with deeper meanings beyond the surface text is a complex, artistic process. Translating books like The Iliad, for instance, requires the practice of artistic translation to translate the emotions, thoughts, and the culture correctly. Technical Translations and Legal Translations Conversely, technical writing and texts for the law need less creativity and instead value correctness over all else. These writing forms require strict adherence to the original sense, leaving very little room for artistic interpretation. Translations for these writing forms thus typically involve less creative contribution and less potential for the work being protected by copyright. Why Is Creativity Important for Translations for Copyright? Originality when translating For a work to be subject to copyright, some creativity, however slight, is essential. Even when the translation is taken from the work, the translation also includes some creative work by the translator. This creativity can make the translation subject to copyright. A derivative work must “recast, transform[], or adapt[]” a preexisting work and “consist[] of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship.” Id. In other words, it must change or alter the pre-existing work’s content and must itself be an original work of authorship. The Supreme Court stated that “ [t]he sine qua non of copyright is originality ” and that “ [t]o qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. ” Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991) at 345. “Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.” Id. (citing 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright §§ 2.01[A], [B] (1990)). In granting a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, the Signo Trading Court held that: " It is inconceivable that anyone could copyright a single word or a commonly used short phrase, in any language. It is also inconceivable that a valid copyright could be obtained for a phonetic spelling, using standard Roman letters, of such words or phrases. Although lists of words and translations of larger works may be copyrightable, Plaintiff cannot claim credit for any of the elements which make those things copyrightable. For these reasons, Plaintiff does not hold a valid copyright on the translations or transliterations ... " Signo Trading, 535 F. Supp. at 365. The Problem of the Derivative Work However, translations are generally "derivative works" - derived from the work of another. Because of this, the owner or author of the work is generally required to agree to the translation. Translations made illegally can be held under the classification of copyright violations, even when the translator has added creative elements. Who Has the Right over the Translated Work? Employer-Commissioned Translations Ownership of the copyright for the translation work varies. If the translation is commissioned by the owner of the original work, the owner will retain the right. Even when the translator adds creativity by passing over the original emotions and thoughts, the owner will not necessarily lose the right over the translation work. In some circumstances, the translation work can be accredited by the translator without them holding the right over the work. Independent Translations If a translation is performed independently by the translator, the translator can even be identified as the co-author of the translation. Nevertheless, the author typically has the underlying copyright, restricting the translator’s right over the work. Creative Translations from the Public Domain In certain cases, a translation may be creative enough to warrant its own copyright. For example, a translator adapting a classic work or a book in the public domain into modern language may introduce enough originality to qualify for copyright protection. However, direct, word-for-word translations are typically not considered original enough to receive new copyright protection. What About Machine Translations? The Human Creativity Copyright Requirement Machine-generated translations, including those produced by platforms like OpenAI , operate through advanced algorithms that replicate language patterns rather than capture the human touch. Unlike translations crafted by human translators who often infuse cultural insight and genuine emotion into the work, OpenAI's output is rooted in statistical patterns and data. Consequently, while these translations are impressively efficient and accurate, they typically fall short of the originality required for copyright protection. This distinction underscores the human creativity requirement needed to secure a valid copyright . Ultimately, although machine-generated translations serve as powerful tools, they do not offer the same legal and creative protections as those provided by human translators. The Bottom Line: Navigating Copyright in Translations Translations occupy the middle ground under the law of the copyright. Albeit the right of the original author generally has the right under the copyright, the right under the copyright can also be claimed by the translator provided the translation is creative enough. Central considerations here include the creativity the translator has added, the nature of the work being translated, and whether the work is under the public domain. These considerations establish the right of the owner under the copyright for the translation. Why Wilson Whitaker Rynell for Your Copyright Work? At Wilson Whitaker Rynell, our professional lawyers specialize in the practice of copyright law and copyright litigation , including the complex subject matter of translation work. We can provide you with advice about the ownership of your work under the provisions of the copyright, and protect your creative property. If you are the author, the publisher, or the translator, you can rely upon the advice from our firm. Copyright Translation FAQS
A building with a sign that says law offices on it
By John Wilson February 12, 2025
Strategic Legal Representation for Complex Business Litigation
A man riding a horse with a bull behind him
By John Wilson January 23, 2025
Understanding Writs of Execution in Texas: A Layperson’s Guide If a court determines that someone owes money to another party, the debtor—referred to as the "judgment debtor"—typically has 30 days to pay off the debt. If the debt remains unpaid after this time, the creditor, or "judgment creditor," can take legal action to enforce the payment through a Writ of Execution . This legal process, governed by Texas law, enables creditors to collect what they are owed by seizing and selling the debtor’s non-exempt assets. What Is a Writ of Execution? Under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 629 , a Writ of Execution is a court order that authorizes a sheriff or constable to seize the debtor’s property to satisfy the debt. This writ is an essential tool for creditors when voluntary repayment has not occurred. Once the writ is issued, it is handed over to a county constable or sheriff, who is required to act “without delay” in collecting the debtor’s real and personal property. The seized property is then sold, and the proceeds are used to pay off the debt. If multiple writs are filed against the same debtor, the assets are distributed in the order the writs were received. What Property Can Be Seized Under a Writ of Execution? Texas law is very specific about which types of property can and cannot be seized to satisfy a judgment. Exempt Property Certain assets are protected from seizure under Texas Property Code § 41.001. These include: The debtor’s homestead (primary residence) Wages earned from employment Professionally prescribed health aids Workers’ compensation benefits College savings plans Some insurance benefits Personal property valued up to $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for families Unique to Texas, the law also protects items like family Bibles, two firearms, pets, and for rural residents, livestock (e.g., 12 head of cattle and 120 fowl). This extensive list reflects Texas's cultural heritage and values. Non-Exempt Property Assets that are generally not exempt include: Vacation homes Timeshares Pleasure boats Airplanes Jewelry exceeding certain value thresholds The specific procedures for seizing different types of property are detailed in Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 639 . Can a Writ of Execution Be Avoided? Judgment debtors have a few options to avoid the execution of a writ: Filing a Supersedeas Bond A supersedeas bond can temporarily halt enforcement of the writ. This bond, filed with the county clerk or justice of the peace, preserves the status quo while the debtor seeks further legal remedies. This option is governed by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 634 . Challenging the Execution Debtors can file a claim for wrongful execution in situations such as: The debt has already been paid Exempt property is being seized The levy is excessive Additionally, courts take extra care to protect property classified as a homestead under Texas Property Code § 41.002(c) . When only one spouse is responsible for the debt, Texas Family Code § 3.202(a) and related provisions provide guidance on levying against community or separate property. The Role of County Officials in Executing the Writ Once the writ is issued, its enforcement falls on county officials, typically a sheriff or constable. These officials must act in accordance with Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 34.072 , which requires them to execute the writ and report back to the court. They must: Give proper notice of the sale of seized property Ensure the proceeds are appropriately delivered to the creditor Avoid overstepping legal boundaries, such as seizing exempt property Failing to execute the writ properly can result in serious consequences, where a sheriff’s refusal to levy on a property initially listed as exempt (but later deemed abandoned) led to court action and damages awarded to the creditor. Preventing Fraudulent Transfers One challenge creditors face is when debtors attempt to hide or transfer assets to avoid collection. To address this, Texas follows the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act under Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 24.001 et seq .. This act provides legal remedies to creditors when a debtor’s transfer of assets is deemed fraudulent. Effect of a Defendant's Death on Writs of Execution Under Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 34.072 , the death of a defendant after a writ of execution is issued halts execution proceedings. However, any lien acquired from the writ's levy is still enforceable by the county court when paying off the deceased's debts. Why Proper Execution Of The Writ Is Crucial The rules for filing and serving a Writ of Execution are strict and detailed. Missteps, such as filing the writ in the wrong county, failing to serve the proper parties, or missing key deadlines, can lead to delays or even render the writ ineffective. Both creditors and debtors must ensure compliance with these rules to avoid unnecessary complications. For creditors, failure to properly enforce the writ could mean losing the opportunity to collect on a judgment. For debtors, not responding appropriately to a writ could result in the loss of valuable assets, even those that might have been exempt.
Show More
Share by: