Case 29.2

FACTS Belton Kleberg Johnson was a descendant of the founders of the King Ranch, a famous ranch in Texas that dates back to the 1850s. He was married three times and had three children from his first marriage, as well as eight grandchildren. Johnson was a long-term alcoholic who had received both in-patient and out-patient treatment at alcohol rehabilitation facilities during his life. Johnson executed a will in 1991, when he was married to his second wife. That will provided for her during her lifetime and left the remainder of his estate in a trust for his grandchildren and children. When his second wife died in 1994, he changed the will to give each grandchild $1 million and to give the remainder to five charities. His children were provided for in a separate trust. Johnson met his third wife, Laura, shortly after the death of his second wife, and they were married in 1996. In 1997, Johnson executed a will that left $1 million to each grandchild and the remainder to Laura. In 1999, Johnson executed a new will that left his entire estate in trust to Laura for her life and then to a foundation that she controlled. After Johnson died in 2001, his attorney submitted the will from 1999 to probate. Johnson's children and grandchildren (the plaintiffs) challenged the will in court. A jury concluded that the will was invalid as a result of undue influence by Laura. She appealed, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding.
ISSUE Was Johnson's 1999 will-which left his sizeable estate to his third wife, Laura, and excluded his children and grandchildren-a result of undue influence?

DECISION Yes. The state appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The court concluded that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's finding of undue influence.

REASON To prevail on an undue influence claim in Texas, the plaintiff must prove that (1) undue influence was exerted, (2) the influence overpowered the mind of the testator, and (3) the will would not have been executed but for the undue influence. The court reasoned that "the exertion of undue influence is usually a subtle thing, and by its very nature usually involves an extended course of dealings and circumstances." In this case, the evidence showed that Johnson was an alcoholic, and psychological and medical tests indicated that the alcohol had had an adverse effect on his mental state. Several experts testified that he had permanent cognitive defects and memory problems that would have caused him to be more susceptible to undue influence. Laura denied Johnson's drinking problem in court, although Johnson himself had admitted that it was ongoing when he was hospitalized in 2000, a year before his death. Evidence also suggested that Laura had exerted substantial control over many aspects of Johnson's life. She had refused to sign a prenuptial agreement, for example, and was involved in his estate planning. She had also made negative remarks about his children and grandchildren. Furthermore, evidence established that Johnson was quite proud of his heritage and wanted to provide for his descendants, as well as for the charities named in the earlier will.

WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? Suppose that Johnson, in his 1999 will, had specifically mentioned that it was his intention that his children and grandchildren would not receive any portion of his estate. Would that have changed the outcome? Why or why not?