in the Matter of the Estate of Willie Sue Hammack
12-15-00246-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 2, 2015Background
- Decedent Willie Sue Hammack died July 2, 2006; a 1986 will existed. Husband Morrison Hammack, Jr. filed to probate the will as a muniment of title on July 17, 2014—over eight years after death. Contestants (Marsh, Buckley, Stuart, Marsh) challenged probate under the four‑year limitation in Tex. Estates Code §256.003.
- Trial court admitted the will as a muniment of title on June 25, 2015 and expressly found Applicant (M. Hammack) was not in default for failing to probate within four years.
- Appellant (the contestants) appealed, arguing the evidence was legally and factually insufficient and against the great weight of the evidence to support the trial court’s finding of no default.
- Key factual points relied on by contestants: M. Hammack knew of the will and its contents at decedent’s death; he did not consult an attorney or others about probate until shortly before filing; witnesses testified estate assets (bank accounts, house/land, vehicles) were sufficient to pay probate costs.
- Appellant contends ignorance of the law and claimed lack of funds were not credible excuses and that the trial court improperly declined timely findings of fact/conclusions of law requested by contestants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Contestants) | Defendant's Argument (Applicant) | Held (Trial court) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applicant was in default for failing to probate the will within four years | M. Hammack had custody/knowledge of the will, knew its terms, had estate assets sufficient to pay probate costs, and failed to probate within statutory period; evidence insufficient to support no‑default finding | Applicant (per trial court) was not at fault and therefore not in default; court concluded equitable/other reasons excused delay | Trial court found applicant not in default and admitted the will as a muniment of title |
| Whether ignorance of law or claimed lack of funds can excuse late probate | Ignorance and unverified claims of insufficient funds are not excusable; witnesses showed assets existed to fund probate | Applicant argued (implicitly) that circumstances excused the delay (trial court credited this) | Trial court credited excuse and found no default |
| Sufficiency of evidence standard: legal and factual sufficiency of the no‑default finding | The evidence was legally and factually insufficient and against the great weight/preponderance to support the trial court’s conclusion of no default | Trial court relied on the applicant’s position and evidence it found persuasive | Appellant urges reversal; trial court judgment stands until appellate reversal |
| Effect of trial court’s failure/denial to timely make requested findings and conclusions | Contestants argue court’s refusal to timely provide findings should lead to de novo review of legal conclusions and weigh against trial court’s factual conclusions | Trial court ultimately filed findings/conclusions later; court’s conclusions stand absent reversal | Appellant seeks de novo review and reversal; trial court entered findings belatedly but upheld no‑default conclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Everett H. Rothrock Deceased, 312 S.W.3d 271 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2010) (custodian of will is charged with knowledge that will must be probated within statute; mistake of fact insufficient to excuse delay)
- In re Estate of Campbell, 343 S.W.3d 889 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (reiterates that custodian of will is charged with knowledge of probate deadline; examines excuse for late probate)
- Brown v. Byrd, 512 S.W.2d 753 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1974) (ignorance of the law and family agreements do not excuse failure to file will within statutory period)
- Estate of Ruby Fowler Cornes, 175 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005) (family oral agreements and similar informal understandings insufficient to excuse late probate)
- Orr v. Walker, 438 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (defines “default” under probate limitations statute and sets sufficiency standards)
- Schindler v. Schindler, 119 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (standards for legal and factual insufficiency review in late‑probate/default cases)
- Estate of Cordelia Williams, 111 S.W.3d 259 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (appellate standard of review for conclusions of law and importance of findings when requested)