Evans v. Allen, 358 S.W.3d 358

William Vinson executed a March 1, 2006 self-proving will leaving equal shares to Ollie Evans and Aisha Evans, with Aisha as independent executor and Ollie as contingent independent executor.
Vinson was placed under guardianship in September 2006; Allen was appointed permanent guardian of Vinson's person and estate.
On December 22, 2006 Vinson executed a second self-proving will revoking the first, disinheriting Evans, and naming Allen as independent executor while under guardianship.
Vinson died January 18, 2007; Allen probated the second will on February 28, 2007, and letters testamentary were issued to Allen.
Evans, beneficiary under the first will, filed a will contest July 2, 2009 arguing lack of testamentary capacity and forgery/ fraud exceptions to the two-year limit.
Trial court directed verdict for Allen on statute of limitations grounds; Evans appeals, raising two issues: limitations and judicial estoppel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the contest is barred by the statute of limitations	Evans argues discovery rule/applicability delays start.	Allen argues Evans as an interested person had constructive notice when the Second Will was admitted to probate; statute began then.	Limitations bar Evans's contest; directed verdict affirmed.
Whether Allen is judicially estopped from seeking probate of the Second Will	Evans claims inconsistent positions after guardianship finding of incapacity.	Allen contends guardian status does not imply incapacity for testamentary capacity; no inconsistency.	No judicial estoppel; guardianship context does not create inconsistent positions; Second Will probate may proceed.

Mooney v. Harlin, 622 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. 1981) (constructive notice in probate-related actions; limits start at probate admission)
Little v. Smith, 943 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. 1997) (refuses discovery rule in probate contexts; finality of probate records emphasized)
In re Estate of Redus, 321 S.W.3d 160 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2010) (standing and interest in estate for will contest; prior will beneficiaries have pecuniary interest)
Clement v. Rainey, 50 S.W.2d 359 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1932) (guardianship does not automatically negate testamentary capacity; rebuttable presumption exists)
Stephen v. Coleman, 533 S.W.2d 444 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1976) (guardianship presumption of lack of capacity may be rebutted by evidence of capacity on date of will)
Estate of Robinson, 140 S.W.3d 782 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2004) (testator's testamentary capacity evaluated on the date of will execution)
Bolton v. Stewart, 191 S.W.2d 798 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1945) (guardianship at time of will execution; capacity may be rebutted by proof of capacity at execution)