in the Matter of the Estate of Mary Marshall Holley, 11-15-00173-CV

Decedent Mary Holley’s will and first codicil were probated; daughter Pamela moved to admit the instruments and be appointed independent executrix. Brother John objected and later filed a will contest and a motion to remove Pamela as executrix.
At an April 25, 2014 hearing the court admitted the will and codicil and appointed Pamela; John alleges his counsel lacked notice that objections and probate would be heard then.
John later filed an amended will contest alleging undue influence, incapacity, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and misappropriation by Pamela. Pamela moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing John’s estate debt exceeded his devise and thus he was not an “interested person” under Tex. Est. Code § 22.018.
At the dismissal hearing John testified he owed his mother about $480,000 (a judgment later showing approx. $670,000) but also alleged he paid funds to his mother that Pamela failed to account for and accused her of malfeasance. Pamela’s inventory listed estate assets and claims of approx. $2.47 million.
The trial court found John’s indebtedness exceeded his potential inheritance and dismissed his will contest and removal motion for lack of standing. John appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (John)	Defendant's Argument (Pamela)	Held
Whether John had standing to contest the will and codicil	John is a devisee and heir so he is an "interested person" under §22.018; disputed facts about what distribution he will receive require merits resolution	John’s judgment debt to the estate exceeded his devised share, so he lacks a property interest and is not an "interested person" under §22.018	Reversed: John has standing as a devisee/ heir; disputed facts about distribution go to the merits, not jurisdiction
Whether §22.018 requires a person to have a property right in the estate in addition to being an heir/devisee	§22.018’s disjunctive phrasing means being an heir or devisee alone suffices for "interested person" status	§22.018 should be read to exclude those whose pre-death indebtedness negates any beneficial interest	Held for John: statute is disjunctive—heir or devisee status alone confers standing
Whether disputed accounting and indebtedness must be resolved at the in-limine standing stage	John: disputes about accounting and whether indebtedness offsets his devise raise factual issues on the merits that preclude dismissal	Pamela: the judgment amount shows no possible distribution; standing fails as a matter of law	Held for John: factual disputes about entitlement/distribution are merits issues and bar dismissal on standing grounds

Frost Nat’l Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. 2010) (standing is part of subject-matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (procedures for resolving jurisdictional fact disputes; review de novo)
Brown v. Todd, 53 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. 2001) (plea to the jurisdiction analogy)
Logan v. Thomason, 202 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. 1947) (contestant must allege/ prove legally ascertained pecuniary interest)
In re Estate of Redus, 321 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010) (disputed merits facts can preclude dismissal for lack of standing)
In re Estate of Forister, 421 S.W.3d 175 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (burden to prove interest when standing is challenged in probate)
Abbott v. Foy, 662 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1983) (distinguishing standing inquiry from merits entitlement to share)
In re Estate of Bendtsen, 230 S.W.3d 832 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (statutory definition of interested person applied strictly)