in Re the Estate of Nobie Florence Parker, 06-14-00099-CV

Testatrix Nobie Parker (b.1918) executed a will in 2003 dividing her estate equally among her three children; in February 2006 she executed a new will leaving her entire estate to son Richard and excluding daughter JoAnn and granddaughter Deborah.
Richard applied to probate the 2006 will; JoAnn contested, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.
One-day jury trial with three witnesses produced verdicts finding (1) Nobie lacked testamentary capacity when she signed the 2006 will and (2) Nobie signed the will under undue influence.
Trial court entered judgment denying probate of the 2006 will; Richard appealed raising legal- and factual-sufficiency challenges to both jury findings.
Medical testimony (Dr. Ted Trimble, Nobie’s treating physician) described dementia, confusion, brittle diabetes with extreme glucose swings, prior strokes and compromised neurologic function; Dr. Trimble testified Nobie lacked the mental ability in February 2006 to understand she was making a will or the nature/extent of her property.
JoAnn testified about Nobie’s delusions (e.g., believing JoAnn appeared regularly on TV) and described repeated domineering/bossy behavior by Richard toward Nobie and incidents suggesting Richard asserted control (e.g., claiming decision-making authority over life-support matters and burning possessions).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (JoAnn)	Defendant's Argument (Richard)	Held
1. Was there legally sufficient evidence that Nobie lacked testamentary capacity when she signed the 2006 will?	Evidence (treating physician and daughter) showed dementia, confusion, inability to understand making a will, and inability to know nature/extent of property — supporting lack of capacity.	Proponent (Richard) contends the evidence establishes capacity as a matter of law and that no evidence supports the contrary finding.	Jury finding of lack of testamentary capacity supported by "some evidence;" appellate standard requires proponent to surmount two Sterner hurdles, which Richard failed; finding affirmed.
2. Was there legally sufficient evidence of undue influence in execution of the 2006 will?	Circumstantial evidence of infirmity of mind, an unnatural disposition (complete exclusion of JoAnn and Deborah), and Richard’s domineering conduct support undue influence.	Richard argues evidence is legally insufficient and urges the court to disregard evidence contrary to his burden.	Jury finding of undue influence supported by probative circumstantial evidence; jurors best-situated to weigh such evidence; finding affirmed.

Seigler v. Seigler, 391 S.W.2d 403 (Tex. 1965) (proponent bears burden to prove testamentary capacity)
Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1989) (appellate review when appellant bore burden requires two-step analysis: look for supporting evidence and then whether contrary is conclusively established)
Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (legal-sufficiency standard: view evidence in the light most favorable to verdict; more than scintilla required)
Rothermel v. Duncan, 369 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. 1963) (undue influence commonly proved by circumstantial evidence and an extended course of dealing)
ACS Investors, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 943 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. 1997) (any probative evidence supporting a finding requires upholding the verdict)
In re Estate of Woods, 542 S.W.2d 845 (Tex. 1976) (review of legal sufficiency considers evidence favoring the finding and disregards contrary evidence)
Bracewell v. Bracewell, 20 S.W.3d 14 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (valid will requires testamentary capacity)
Croucher v. Croucher, 660 S.W.2d 55 (Tex. 1983) (discusses conclusively established proof on appeal where appellant bore the burden)
In re Estate of Riley, 824 S.W.2d 305 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992) (factors for undue influence include infirmity of mind and unnatural disposition)