Skip to main content

Kinsel v. Lindsey

Opinion Date 2017-05-26
  • Court Line: Supreme Court of Texas
  • Citation: 526 S.W.3d 411
  • Ruling: Affirm
  • Appellate Standard: Sufficiency of the evidence
  • Jury: Jury
  • Probate Court: Yes
  • Death Date: 2008-08-22
  • Death Date from Ancestry.com or Outside Source: :Yes
  • Testator Age at Will Signing: 94
  • Will Age by Days: 546
Details
Contestant(s):
Step-Child
Proponent(s):
Niece
  • Dueling Wills: Yes
  • Caregiver as: Contestant; Proponent; Neither: Proponent
  • Testator Male or Female: Female
  • Testator Education Summary: Unknown
  • Testator Sophistication Rating: Unknown

  • Prevailing Party in Trial Court: Contestant
  • Prevailing Party in COA: Appellee
  • Prevailing Party in Texas Supreme Court: Appellee
  • Amount of Attorneys' Fees: $ 800000.
  • Will Type or Trust: Non-holographic
  • Doctor Testimony at Trial: Retained expert - Contestant
  • Alleged Ailments: Dementia - Non-Specified
  • Parallel Cite: 2017 WL 2324392
  • Docket Number: 15-0403

Outcomes
  • Our Summary:

    Even though drafting attorney testified to settlor's capacity, contestant's offered sufficient evidence of incapacity to support jury finding. Settlor required 24 hour nursing care, had a dramatic change in handwriting, was often confused and forgetful, and had many physical ailments.

  • Interesting Notes:

    We agree that not all of Lesey's afflictions suggest she was mentally compromised. Evidence of physical infirmities, without more, does not tend to prove mental incapacity. See Horton v. Horton, 965 S.W.2d 78, 86 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). But evidence of physical problems that are consistent with or can contribute to mental incapacity is probative. See Croucher v. Croucher, 660 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Tex. 1983) (“[T]he evidence did not simply demonstrate physical decline. Rather, the contestants produced evidence of physical problems, i.e. occlusion of the carotid arteries, consistent with mental incapacity.”).

Summaries