in the Matter of the Estate of Noemi Ruth Sidransky A/K/A Noemi Wiener Sidransky
420 S.W.3d 90
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Sidransky executed a 1999 will and a 2003 amendment; Graciela Barajas was executor and primary caretaker for Sidransky and her disabled daughter Miriam.
- Appellants Moises and Raquel challenged the 1999/2003 instruments alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by Graciela.
- Trial court found Sidransky had capacity for both instruments; Graciela moved for summary judgment on undue-influence claim and it was granted.
- Appellants argued circumstantial evidence showed existence/ exertion of undue influence and overpowered Sidransky’s mind at execution.
- Appellants relied on medical evidence suggesting susceptibility to influence; the court evaluated factors governing undue influence and concluded no fact issue existed.
- Appellate court affirmed summary judgment, holding no genuine issue of material fact on undue influence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there evidence of existence and exertion of undue influence? | Appellants contend evidence shows Graciela’s influence existed and was exerted. | Graciela argues no substantial evidence of undue influence; witnesses confirmed Sidransky’s sane mind and voluntary actions. | No genuine issue; evidence insufficient. |
| Did Sidransky’s condition show she was overpowered at execution? | Appellants assert weakened condition indicates mind overpowered by Graciela. | Condition shows susceptibility only, not actual subversion; testimony supports independent execution. | Insufficient to show overpowered mind. |
| Did the evidence indicate that the will’s disposition was the result of undue influence such that Sidransky would not have acted otherwise? | Disfavored children excluded; disposition alleged to be unnatural and influenced. | Right to dispose as wished; exclusion based on perceived theft and family dynamics; not inherently undue. | Dispositive choices not proof of undue influence as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rothermel v. Duncan, 369 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. 1963) (undue-influence elements and standard)
- Guthrie v. Suiter, 934 S.W.2d 820 (Tex.App.--Houston (1st Dist.) 1996) (influence must subvert free will; not every entreaty is undue)
- Reynolds v. Park, 485 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1972) (susceptibility to influence not alone proof of undue influence)
- M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2000) (summary judgment standards; no-evidence standard guidance)
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (no-evidence standard; summary judgment evidentiary thresholds)