in the Estate of Manuela Mesa Casas, 14-20-00575-CV

Manuela Casas executed successive wills: a 2010 will dividing her estate among eight children, and a 2014 will prepared by attorney Rosalind Curtis naming daughter Rebecca as sole beneficiary.
From late 2011 Manuela lived with Rebecca; Rebecca provided daily care, was designated as agent under powers of attorney, and was co-signer on a bank account; Rebecca’s daughter’s company later bought Manuela’s house.
Manuela suffered a stroke in 2012 and medical records later referenced a history of dementia; witnesses recalled episodes of confusion, and Curtis had her paralegal read the 2014 will to Manuela in Spanish.
Concepcion originally had the 2010 will admitted to probate; Rebecca later sought to probate the 2014 will and Concepcion contested it on undue-influence grounds.
The probate court found (1) Manuela’s primary language was Spanish and she had difficulty with English, and (2) the 2014 will was the product of Rebecca’s undue influence; Rebecca appealed.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the language finding but reversed and remanded because the undue-influence finding was factually insufficient.

Issue	Rebecca's Argument	Concepcion's Argument	Held
Whether trial court correctly found Manuela’s primary language was Spanish and that she had difficulty understanding English	Insufficient evidence that Spanish was primary / Manuela understood English	Testimony (Concepcion; Curtis had paralegal read will in Spanish) showed Spanish primary and difficulty with English	Finding affirmed — evidence legally and factually sufficient to show Spanish was primary language
Whether the 2014 will was the product of undue influence	The finding is legally and factually insufficient: no proof Rebecca exerted influence that overpowered Manuela’s mind; evidence is speculative	Rebecca had opportunity (caregiver, presence at signing, POAs, joint account, house sale) and made statements that she alone cared for Manuela; combined with Manuela’s cognitive decline, this shows undue influence	Finding reversed and remanded — the record contains only suspicion, not convincing evidence Rebecca overbore Manuela; undue-influence finding is factually insufficient

Rothermel v. Duncan, 369 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. 1963) (elements and factors for undue influence claim)
In re Estate of Woods, 542 S.W.2d 845 (Tex. 1976) (undue influence elements applied to will contests)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal-sufficiency review of fact findings)
Mar. Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402 (Tex. 1998) (standard for factual-sufficiency review)
Long v. Long, 125 S.W.2d 1034 (Tex. 1939) (unnatural dispositions as evidence of undue influence)
Guthrie v. Suiter, 934 S.W.2d 820 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996) (close care relationships do not alone establish undue influence)
In re Estate of Davis, 920 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1996) (opportunity to influence insufficient without proof of actual exertion)
In re Estate of Kam, 484 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016) (disinheriting children does not itself prove undue influence)