Texas Capital Bank, as Successor Independent of the Estate of Frederic B. "Tex" Asche, Jr. Mary Susan Barnhill, as Independent of the Estate of Sarah P. "Sallie" Asche And Baylor University Medical Center v. Fritz Asche, Vale Asche Elkins, Craig Asche, Lisa Mittnacht, and Rick Asche, 05-15-00102-CV

Background

Frederic B. “Tex” Asche suffered a severe stroke in September 1997 that left him with right‑side paralysis, aphasia, impaired short‑term memory and diminished executive functioning; he executed multiple wills, codicils, a 2005 will, and a 2005 management trust after the stroke.
Tex’s post‑stroke estate planning increasingly disinherited his five children in favor of his wife, Sarah P. “Sallie” Asche, and Sallie later left her estate to Baylor University Medical Center.
The Children challenged all post‑stroke wills, codicils, trusts, and amendments on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence; a jury found Tex lacked capacity and that Sallie exerted undue influence, and the trial court set aside the post‑stroke instruments and admitted the 1995 will to probate.
Appellants (Texas Capital Bank as executor, Sallie’s executrix, and Baylor) appealed, arguing (inter alia) that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to prove incapacity, the trial court erred admitting the Children’s psychiatric expert, the court improperly excluded evidence about Sallie’s specific charitable intent, juror misconduct required a new trial, and the court lacked jurisdiction to set aside the 2005 management trust because the trustee was not a party.
The court of appeals affirmed the judgment in all respects except it reversed the portion setting aside the 2005 management trust for lack of jurisdiction over the trustee.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Children)	Defendant's Argument (Appellants)	Held
Sufficiency: Did evidence support jury finding Tex lacked testamentary capacity for 1998–2005 instruments?	Post‑stroke medical records, a forensic psychiatrist’s retrospective opinion, and consistent lay testimony show persistent cognitive deficits making Tex unable to understand wills and related documents.	Lawyers who prepared the instruments and Tex’s treating physician observed Tex at executions and testified he appeared competent; appellants contend expert opinion was unreliable and contrary evidence precludes the verdict.	Court: Evidence (Dr. Clayton + lay testimony) legally and factually sufficient; affirmed lack‑of‑capacity findings.
Admissibility of expert (Dr. Lisa Clayton): Was her retrospective psychiatric opinion reliable?	Expert applied accepted forensic methods, relied on CT scan, records, and witness observations to bridge the analytical gap; admissible under soft‑science reliability inquiry.	Appellants argued Clayton failed to bridge the analytical gap and relied on stale/insufficient records and speculation.	Court: No abuse of discretion admitting Clayton; her opinion reliable and properly considered.
Exclusion of evidence about Sallie’s specific charitable bequest to Baylor: Was exclusion erroneous?	Appellants sought to show Sallie’s altruistic motive (bone‑marrow transplant funding) to rebut negative character inference.	Trial court excluded the specific purpose under Rule 403 as unduly prejudicial but allowed evidence that Sallie left her estate to charity/Baylor generally.	Court: Exclusion within trial court’s discretion; probative value outweighed by prejudice; no abuse.
Juror misconduct: Did accidental LinkedIn contact require new trial?	Contact with juror Pollard was misconduct; appellants argued prejudice and sought a new trial.	Children’s counsel immediately disclosed the accidental contact; no evidence the juror was influenced or that contact was a ‘‘special favor’’ causing probable injury.	Court: No hearing requested/offered live proof; misconduct found inadvertent and not shown to be materially prejudicial or probably injurious; denial of new trial affirmed.
Jurisdiction to set aside 2005 management trust: Could court invalidate trust without joining trustee?	Children obtained relief invalidating the trust along with wills and codicils.	Appellants argued trial court lacked jurisdiction over the trust because the trustee was not named or joined in their capacity as trustee.	Court: Trustee not joined in trustee capacity; trustee and executor are distinct; trial court lacked jurisdiction to set aside the management trust — that portion reversed.

Key Cases Cited

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal and factual sufficiency review)
Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998) (trial court gatekeeping role for expert testimony)
Whirlpool Corp. v. Camacho, 298 S.W.3d 631 (Tex. 2009) (expert reliability and analytical‑gap approach in soft sciences)
Merrell Dow Pharm. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (foundation reliability for expert testimony)
In re Estate of Robinson, 140 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2004) (retrospective psychiatric opinion admissibility and reliability)
Mapco, Inc. v. Carter, 817 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1991) (requirement that defendants be properly before court to render judgment)
Ray Malooly Trust v. Juhl, 186 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. 2006) (suits against trusts must name the trustee)
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (de novo review for subject‑matter jurisdiction)