in the Estate of Henry H. Blankenship
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 10011
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Two wills exist: Mexican will (1967) covering all property to 11 children; US will/codicil (1973) limited US property, left trust for wife and three youngest; Lucia is not among three youngest thus not a beneficiary under US will; Mexican will probated in Mexico (1973) and filed in Texas records (1978); SABT filed to probate US will in Texas; Enrique contested US will and sought Mexican will probate; Lucia later filed 2006 suit seeking to void Nov. 13, 2003 order admitting US will to probate and to declare Mexican will controlling; the probate court granted summary judgment for Kathleen, denying Lucia; Lucia appeals, asserting collateral attack and evidentiary issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral attack on November 13, 2003 order permissible? | Lucia contends the order is void due to lack of jurisdiction. | Kathleen argues the order valid and not void; evidence extrinsic to record improper. | Order not void; collateral attack failed. |
| Rule 11 agreement existence; should be admitted? | Lucia asserts a Rule 11 agreement prevented admission of US will. | Kathleen did not concede; issue not preserved for review. | Issue not preserved; overruled. |
| Evidentiary rulings on Lucia’s summary-judgment evidence (extrinsic evidence, hearsay) were proper? | Lucia argues exclusion deprived her of proof on voidness and fraud. | Kathleen properly excluded extrinsic evidence and some hearsay. | Probate court did not err; rulings upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2012) (collateral attack principles; void judgment requisite for attack)
- Browning v. Prostok, 165 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2005) (finality policy in probate collateral challenges)
- Little v. Smith, 943 S.W.3d 414 (Tex. 1997) (finality of probate judgments; scope of review)