When a loved one dies, leaving behind multiple wills executed over many years, family members who believe they should inherit often face a threshold question: do they even have standing to challenge the most recent will? The answer is complicated when an older, self-proved will exists that would control even if the newest will is defeated. This creates a procedural dilemma where potential heirs must prove they have a financial stake in the estate before they can argue that all the wills should be set aside.
The question is even harder when the decedent may have revoked a prior will through an informal handwritten document. Does such a document have sufficient testamentary intent to revoke an earlier will? Two cousins in Galveston County faced precisely this issue when they sought to contest their cousin’s 2016 will, alleging fraud during his declining health. When challenged on standing because a 1994 will would control distribution, they pointed to a 2012 handwritten instrument that might have revoked everything.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District examined this scenario in In re Estate of Robert, No. 14-24-00922-CV, 2025 WL 5479821. The opinion provides important guidance on when courts must allow fact questions about standing to proceed to trial rather than dismissing will contests at the outset.
Facts & Procedural History
Robert died unmarried and childless on November 26, 2016. His 2016 will, executed three months before his death, called for most of his assets to be put into a revocable trust and bequeathed the residue to his maternal aunt, Willie, and her son, Eddie. The will expressly revoked all former wills and named Willie as executrix.
Willie probated the will in July 2017. Two years later, Robert’s first cousins filed suit seeking to cancel the will. They alleged that Robert suffered a stroke in March 2016, that his health declined afterward, and that Willie and her attorney fraudulently executed the will during his decline.
Willie died while the probate litigation was pending. The independent administrator of Willie’s estate filed a motion in limine arguing the cousins lacked standing because even if the 2016 will were invalidated, a self-proved 1994 will would control distribution and grant them nothing. At a pretrial hearing, the cousins countered that Robert had revoked all prior wills in a handwritten 2012 instrument. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the suit with prejudice. The cousins appealed.
Standing Requires a Pecuniary Interest in the Estate
The concept of “standing” operates as” is a threshold requirement in Texas probate litigation. Without standing, a probate court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a will contest. The Texas Estates Code says that a “person interested in an estate” has standing as they can file a written opposition to any issue in a probate proceeding. The Code defines a “person interested” to include “an heir, devisee, spouse, creditor, or any other having a property right in or claim against an estate being administered.”
Despite this broad statutory language, Texas courts have said that the only interest conferring standing to contest a will is a pecuniary one that will be affected by the probate or defeat of the will. The person contesting a will bears the burden of establishing this necessary pecuniary interest.
This requirement makes practical sense in for probate administration cases. Without it, anyone with a tangential connection to a decedent could initiate costly and time-consuming probate litigation, even when they would receive nothing regardless of whether the will is upheld or defeated. The pecuniary interest requirement ensures that only those with a real stake in the outcome can burden the estate and other beneficiaries with litigation.
Self-Proved Wills Create Standing Obstacles
A self-proved will creates unique procedural advantages that can defeat standing arguments before a contest even begins. When a will is self-proved under the Texas Estates Code, no further proof of proper execution, formalities, or testamentary capacity is necessary for admission to probate. The self-proving affidavit constitutes prima facie evidence of the will’s validity.
This can be a significant obstacle for potential contestants who claim to be intestate heirs. If an older, self-proved will would control even if the newest will is defeated, the contestant cannot demonstrate the necessary pecuniary interest because defeating the newest will would not result in intestacy. The self-proving affidavit’s prima facie effect does not render it immune from challenge.
While competent testimony can contradict the recitals in a self-proving affidavit, that testimony does not destroy the prima facie case but instead creates a fact question for the trier of fact to resolve.
Whether a Handwritten Document Can Revoke a Prior Will
Under the Texas Estates Code, a written will may be revoked only by a subsequent will, codicil, or declaration in writing executed with like formalities, or by the testator destroying or canceling the document. This means a handwritten instrument cannot revoke a prior will unless it meets the formal requirements for will execution.
Texas law recognizes holographic wills, wills written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator, which do not require witnesses. For a holographic instrument to serve as a will or codicil that revokes prior testamentary instruments, it must evidence the testator’s testamentary intent. Courts examine the language used, the formality of the document, the circumstances of execution, and other evidence to determine whether the testator intended the document to operate as a final disposition of property upon death.
An invalid will cannot revoke a former will. This principle protects the testator’s last valid testamentary intent from being undone by informal or improperly executed documents. If a testator signs a document purporting to revoke all prior wills but that document lacks testamentary intent or the necessary formalities, the revocation clause has no effect.
When Courts Must Allow Standing Questions to Proceed to Trial
When a party challenges standing through a motion in limine or motion to dismiss, the probate court has to determine whether the contestant has alleged and demonstrated the necessary jurisdictional facts.
For this analysis, the court takes as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant and indulges every reasonable inference in the nonmovant’s favor. If the evidence creates a fact question regarding the jurisdictional issue, the trial court cannot grant the motion to dismiss as a matter of law. Instead, the fact issue must be resolved by the fact finder at trial.
In this case, the appeals court reversed the trial court’s dismissal as it found that the 1994 will could be admissible to probate if the 2016 will were defeated. Although the 1994 will was self-proved, the court held that a fact question existed as to its admissibility because the cousins pointed to the 2012 handwritten instrument as potentially revoking it. Whether that instrument had testamentary intent sufficient to revoke the 1994 will presented a fact question that could not be resolved as a matter of law.
If the 2012 instrument revoked the 1994 will, and if the cousins successfully defeated the 2016 will, Robert would have died intestate. The cousins, as surviving heirs, would then be beneficiaries under the intestacy statutes, giving them the necessary pecuniary interest to establish standing. Because the evidence created a fact question regarding the jurisdictional issue, the trial court erred by granting the motion in limine on standing.
The Takeaway
The decision reinforces that Texas courts cannot prematurely dismiss will contests when fact questions exist about a contestant’s standing, even when self-proved wills complicate the analysis. When multiple wills exist, and an intermediate document might have revoked an earlier will, courts must allow the fact finder to resolve questions about testamentary intent and validity rather than ruling on standing as a matter of law.
This means potential heirs facing a standing challenge can survive dismissal by pointing to evidence that all prior wills may have been validly revoked, creating a path to intestacy that would give them the necessary pecuniary interest. The decision protects the right of potential beneficiaries to have their day in court when genuine factual disputes exist about the chain of testamentary instruments.
We are Corpus Christi probate attorneys. We help clients navigate the probate process. Call today for a free confidential consultation, (361) 502-4240.
Our Corpus Christi Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with probate disputes. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the probate process. We have years of combined experience we can use to support and guide you with probate and estate matters. Call us today for a FREE attorney consultation.
Disclaimer
The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The information presented may not apply to your situation and should not be acted upon without consulting a qualified probate attorney. We encourage you to seek the advice of a competent attorney with any legal questions you may have.
