Yost v. Fails
534 S.W.3d 517
Tex. App.2017Background
- Sara McGowan (in her 90s, frail) moved into her nephew James Fails’s home in Jan 2011; she granted him power of attorney and became dependent on him for care and finances.
- While acting under the POA, Fails transferred large sums from McGowan’s accounts into accounts he controlled and to third parties; shortly after McGowan executed a new will in Nov 2011 naming Fails primary beneficiary, she died in March 2012.
- McGowan’s earlier will (1979) named her sister Georgia Cox as sole beneficiary; Cox (through Bernice Yost as special conservator) contested the 2011 will and alleged undue influence and tortious interference with inheritance.
- A jury found (1) McGowan’s 2011 will was procured by undue influence, (2) Fails lacked good faith and just cause in probating the 2011 will, (3) Yost acted in good faith to probate the 1979 will, and (4) Fails tortiously interfered with Cox’s inheritance; the jury awarded attorneys’ fees and $525,000 in damages for tortious interference.
- The probate court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for Fails, admitted the 2011 will to probate, and denied Yost relief; Yost appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Yost) | Defendant's Argument (Fails) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 2011 will — undue influence | Fails exerted influence (control, POA misuse, isolation, involvement in will prep) that overpowered McGowan’s will so she wouldn’t have made the 2011 will absent influence | Evidence equally consistent with lawful care; transfers and assistance were voluntary or for McGowan’s benefit | Jury finding of undue influence is supported by legally sufficient evidence; JNOV reversing that finding was error (reinstated) |
| Good faith and just cause in probating 2011 will | Fails acted dishonestly and without reasonable grounds to probate the 2011 will | Fails had reasonable belief and basis to probate; prior relationship and explanations suffice | Jury finding that Fails lacked good faith and just cause is supported; JNOV reversal was error (reinstated) |
| Tortious interference with inheritance — liability | Undue influence (and related misconduct) prevented Cox from inheriting under 1979 will | No tortious act causing Cox loss; transfers don’t show Cox was the injured party for all amounts | Jury finding of tortious interference is supported by evidence; JNOV reversing that finding was error (claim survives) |
| Damages for tortious interference — $525,000 award | Damages equal misappropriated funds and accounts depleted while Fails controlled assets | Many transfers came from accounts Cox had no expectancy in; award overcompensates Cox and includes funds she wouldn’t have inherited | Award of $525,000 is legally unsupported; damages require proof Cox would have inherited the specific assets — remand for new trial on damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Rothermel v. Duncan, 369 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. 1963) (elements and framework for undue-influence will contests)
- Long v. Long, 125 S.W.2d 1034 (Tex. 1939) (consideration of extended course of dealings and beneficiary’s role in drafting will supports undue-influence inference)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency review standard — view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Tanner v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 289 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. 2009) (review of JNOV for legal sufficiency)
- King v. Acker, 725 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987) (recognizing tortious-interference-with-inheritance claim)