in the Estate of Stephen Everett Koontz, 04-15-00820-CV

Background

Stephen and Joyce Koontz executed reciprocal wills in 2005 naming Robert F. Stuart Jr. as contingent beneficiary; Stephen executed a new will in 2010 leaving his estate to his sister, Glea Hale.
Joyce died in February 2013; Stephen died July 25, 2013; Hale probated the 2010 will and was appointed independent executrix.
Stuart filed a will contest claiming Stephen lacked testamentary capacity and was subject to undue influence; Stuart later focused on capacity at summary judgment.
Hale moved for no-evidence summary judgment on capacity and the court granted it; the court also awarded Hale $18,029.49 in attorney’s fees for Stuart’s purportedly bad-faith contest.
Stuart opposed with an affidavit describing Stephen’s long-term bipolar disorder, delusions and erratic conduct during summer 2010 (around the will date), and an attempted suicide after nursing-home admission.
The court of appeals reversed the no-evidence summary judgment and vacated the attorney-fee award, remanding for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stuart raised more-than-scintilla evidence that Stephen lacked testamentary capacity when executing the 2010 will	Stuart: affidavit describing persistent bipolar disorder, delusions, erratic behavior in summer 2010 (hiding medications, hiding money, delusions about wife, attempted lease of nonowned property, suicide attempt) probative of incapacity on the will date	Hale: drafting attorney’s testimony that she believed Stephen had capacity at execution and would have taken extra steps if she knew of mental-health issues; argues Stuart offered no sufficient proof	Court: Stuart’s evidence rises above a scintilla; factual dispute exists — reversed grant of no-evidence summary judgment
Whether evidence of mental condition at other times was probative of capacity on the will date	Stuart: contemporaneous summer 2010 behavior shows persistent condition likely present at execution (Aug 12, 2010)	Hale: relies on attorney’s in-person assessment at execution to show capacity on that date	Court: Evidence covering the summer of 2010 is probative of the testator’s state on execution day and creates a genuine fact issue
Whether an insane delusion could void testamentary capacity as to the 2010 will	Stuart: delusion that wife was unfaithful could explain departure from 2005 will favoring wife	Hale: no specific rebuttal beyond attorney’s belief of capacity	Court: Recognized legal principle that insane delusions can negate capacity; Stuart’s affidavit supports a fact issue
Whether Stuart must pay attorney’s fees because his contest lacked good faith or just cause	Hale: trial court found no good faith and awarded fees	Stuart: contest supported by affidavit and raises triable issues	Court: Reversed fee award because summary-judgment ruling for Hale was improper

Key Cases Cited

Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2006) (no‑evidence summary judgment standard and evidence-viewing rules)
Boerjan v. Rodriguez, 436 S.W.3d 307 (Tex. 2014) (standard for more‑than‑a‑scintilla evidence)
King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (definition of more‑than‑a‑scintilla evidence)
Lee v. Lee, 424 S.W.2d 609 (Tex. 1968) (burden of proof for will contestant after probate)
Lindley v. Lindley, 384 S.W.2d 676 (Tex. 1964) (insane delusion can negate testamentary capacity)
Orozco v. Orozco, 917 S.W.2d 70 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996) (same principle regarding insane delusions and capacity)
Long v. Long, 196 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (test for testamentary capacity elements)
In re Neville, 67 S.W.3d 522 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002) (test for testamentary capacity and use of evidence from other times)
Strange v. HRsmart, Inc., 400 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (reversal of attorney‑fee award when underlying summary judgment improper)
Friedman v. Atl. Funding Corp., 936 S.W.2d 38 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996) (same)