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

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.
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.
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:
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:

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.
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:
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:

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.
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.
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):

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.
Recognized in the legal industry as dedicated board-certified lawyers and Rising Stars.
Your project will be handled by legal experts every time. You will have the most experienced attorneys working for you.
Let's talk about your legal issue
Wilson Legal Group P.C.
d/b/a Wilson Whitaker Rynell
(972) 248-8080 (Dallas) MAIN OFFICE
(713) 830-2207 (Houston) Appointment Only
(512) 691-4100 (Austin) Appointment Only
For more information on how we can assist in your intellectual property, commercial litigation, divorce, or other personal needs, let us know how we can help you:
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL
Thank You for Contacting Us!
Your information has been sent, and we will contact you shorlty...issues.
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL
Oops, there was an error sending your message.
Please try again later.
Disclaimer:
This form does not establish an attorney-client relationship, and should only be used to contact the firm about scheduling a call or meeting. No confidential or sensitive information should be sent using this form.
We represent clients nationwide, including Dallas, Austin, Houston, and other Texas areas such as Fort Worth, Arlington, Carrollton, Plano, Allen, Lewisville, Flower Mound, Irving, Denton, McKinney, North Richland Hills, and all cities within Dallas County, Tarrant County, Collin County, and Denton County.
Wilson Whitaker Rynell
16610 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75248
972-248-8080 (MAIN)
972-248-8088 (FAX)
info@wrrlegal.com (E-MAIL)